Re: [hybi] Masking only Payload/Extension Data

[David Endicott <[e-mail]>]

Fair point.  I agree it is not an undue burden given that we already
have to deal with variable sized length fields anyway.

Upon reflection, I change my vote to: don't care.    I cannot see an
obvious benefit or drawback to either implementation.



On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:13 PM, John Tamplin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:08 PM, David Endicott <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> It would seem to me that it must go after the length field, or else
>> how does the server know how much of the following stream to unmask.
>> It would need to unmask enough of the header to determine the entire
>> frame size and then continue.  That seems an unnecessary burden and
>> complicates server reception processing.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your objection.  If you are writing a blocking
> implementation, in the unmasked case you are going to read 2 bytes, and then
> look at the second byte to decide how many more bytes are in the header.
>  That lets you determine the length of the frame and read the rest of it.
>  In the masked case, (as implemented in -06) you will read 6 bytes, then
> start applying the mask to the bytes read as you process them.  In the
> non-blocking case, you will have a state machine keeping track of where you
> are, and as you receive a byte after you have processed the mask you unmask
> it and process it.  I don't see that it adds much complexity.
>
> --
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>