Re: [hybi] hybi 10 ---- server to client masking

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Wed, 20 July 2011 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0930721F86C2 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.826
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.826 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g21vaR2qFUjh for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF4121F86C1 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.81]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p6KEIkT4023128 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:18:46 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1311171527; bh=eWPyG41jq24whwHeX9l9W3SHWsA=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=TqZ8DitEupPmE4Rj68xxpzeRIiR9HOVqQONvkZm5v/rBhn7elUIWTkMv9DvU0rfW4 pZFdps5OZrPiedlmPzp6g==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=QPWb/2/7iKRRjThacxmlMk0s1T7NxYvyR5902RTCfglzSP5RdPd0RDN8F4lWOdWqh TX4ebBZM9nWW/krQPlI6w==
Received: from gxk21 (gxk21.prod.google.com [10.202.11.21]) by wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p6KEIj0G016010 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:18:46 -0700
Received: by gxk21 with SMTP id 21so140449gxk.33 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=lfMRrkfKr1FXNMMoKk7sl6b13UflbQq2gcdsPq/TLjk=; b=ZKgzlwddIgvit8W3+xQOFD/VNbKF7YY1+1I2pvU8I3MXb1mEO72gxXaZ9Tqy6fmgJT KOyipJNbSpnk18Di+jYQ==
Received: by 10.150.187.20 with SMTP id k20mr8501636ybf.401.1311171518110; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.49.7 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <001f01cc46c5$c51c4e50$4f54eaf0$@noemax.com>
References: <CAHvyngtgP8dtYvAUa_4zn+Jftx44vqsi0=xu8tUqOS3AawGkdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmp_qGdaLFpyPXCAKQuqyS2myBhX=JcbJQB-CEO59A5eA@mail.gmail.com> <001f01cc46c5$c51c4e50$4f54eaf0$@noemax.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:18:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CABLsOLCpJ3F4unr4=fkariV6pKvii9WUsjBmwNsYgEnnkAaAGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arman Djusupov <arman@noemax.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd6ae5a939a6b04a880e8af
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: hybi@ietf.org, "Andy W. Song" <wsongcn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] hybi 10 ---- server to client masking
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:18:48 -0000

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Arman Djusupov <arman@noemax.com> wrote:

> I don't think you are correct. As far as I understand the discussions in
> the group over masking, the server to client masking is optional (server MAY
> MASK). Otherwise we would not need a masking flag in the frame header since
> client-to-server frames would always be masked and server-to-client frames
> would never be masked.
>

The flag was requested so intermediaries (including packet sniffers) could
interpret the frame without knowing the context (ie, which direction the
packet is going or negotiated extensions, etc).

-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google