Re: [hybi] Fwd: Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10

Bruce Atherton <bruce@callenish.com> Thu, 21 July 2011 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <bruce@callenish.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 2155321F8538 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 xtZhI3xhV9vY for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz82.inmotionhosting.com (biz82.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.251.126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75C7721F8531 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [24.108.144.160] (helo=[192.168.145.13]) by biz82.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <bruce@callenish.com>) id 1Qk0N4-0003Zc-KU; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:01:26 -0700
Message-ID: <4E2893B2.7030601@callenish.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:01:38 -0700
From: Bruce Atherton <bruce@callenish.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com>
References: <4E2792EB.2070408@stpeter.im> <CABLsOLCy3xAtXavSGc1mJA18Yhh7gZoaVX9Rg07Dyka1sNx0Tw@mail.gmail.com> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F040D2C304E@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <CABLsOLCUHbW2cfUZUdfugSrMPzRbUO9YK0r77Uq_UNFp0jcJEg@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=F9zipxN8hmh_9bjRDdyG0C0O-7UatNo5RFhSRq2kxdag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP992=F9zipxN8hmh_9bjRDdyG0C0O-7UatNo5RFhSRq2kxdag@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------020708070200020908070601"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz82.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - callenish.com
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Fwd: Gen-ART last call review of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10
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: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:01:28 -0000

I highly suggest that anyone with concerns around masking take a look at 
the FAQ[1]. Skip down to the section labelled "FAQS", that is where the 
useful information is to be found, particularly the odyssey involved in 
coming to a decision on masking to be found in the answer to the 
question "Why does the WebSockets protocol use masking from the client 
to the server?".

There are lots of issues, lots of solutions, and lots of objections to 
every one of the solutions. If a reviewer is going to question the 
utility of masking they should make themselves aware of that FAQ so that 
they can properly understand the context.

Should some portion of that answer be put into the spec? The WG decided 
that it was too complicated and distracted from defining the protocol. 
If a reviewer thinks some portion SHOULD be included, then my personal 
opinion is that wording should be presented to the working group to be 
considered for consensus and adoption.

[1] http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/hybi/trac/wiki/FAQ

On 20/07/2011 8:48 PM, David Endicott wrote:
> I hope you understand the anxiety around this issue.
>
> >We're doing masking
> Why?
> > Because (somebody said they researched and besides we can imagine...)
> Explain please.
> > No.  If anyone else asks, somebody might blog some reasoning
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:44 PM, John Tamplin <jat@google.com 
> <mailto:jat@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Thomson, Martin
>     <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com
>     <mailto:Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>> wrote:
>     > To those providing responses to review comments like this,
>     consider for a moment that perhaps the draft
>     > does not - and should - provide the answer.
>
>     There was discussion about that to, and the majority opinion (not
>     mine) was that rationale did not belong in the spec.  If warranted, a
>     separate rationale document could be written.
>
>     --
>     John A. Tamplin
>     Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>     _______________________________________________
>     hybi mailing list
>     hybi@ietf.org <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi