IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Masking only Payload/Extension Data

David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com> Thu, 10 March 2011 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <dendicott@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534B13A692B for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:58:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QK+d2qIMFelU for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1B03A67FF for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so1674684wwa.13 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:59:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ujtm/Z1qa+MLzjlhB4VJXIzgrfIORemlQq0D79SSB5U=; b=NNIJcXCCkXv6fP3AbUSPZ0fHtVJBo7/OjN6HTw3m2O/fCTJg6nAAmS+1oDfXPZ5Skd jwUB4Ibtv4238tXnkYtCYGfaaPdhBaCJhUI/5GBqjAGVav33i4RAzaFJtkcvir/Yl3Ml CIZKijIiawTLY3jhZ/5hafPUSHnUuL4fiL7E8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=IrdJcCulcFSETFArxe9sglXwQaR25ySyId1ch6Defyx2sx4IdEtJc5t0TPB7Nc8onn Sp09ZxDBt5Ws4smpOJ1pmNOwxeaxylnGQRC7FAJ22+/hyZu38okZq2JT3VuhDWHtplYv S4pcYTd3ySSSSKiiYi0G6+xwCH4wWk1r+87Vk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.171.133 with SMTP id r5mr6030647wel.91.1299787198279; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:59:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.122.13 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:59:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinPp5bCrwhy1oWvZZvt0VCzN=rDjKgz7inq7nrO@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D77B885.5050109@callenish.com> <OF36FEDDC6.06951577-ON8825784E.0062343E-8825784E.0066AC27@playstation.sony.com> <AANLkTinau4g1pB_ccJ31u7WRi5npYtHvXE5YRn5uTbeV@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikB4YeaYiF_NVGn61c1YxpNWbmEWQZu1WcN+=Jf@mail.gmail.com> <1299704939.2606.238.camel@ds9.ducksong.com> <20110309214212.GA29190@1wt.eu> <AANLkTi=i=8aWg=6+T7=Kn5dWeKkW6MYVCH_CuNkt_ZMM@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimip9o0RoZaBfONCmg5nuJVWXjOKDKgAt8zrNVV@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikbFBeM6+hiURSBqxFyjc2Wc-yh8UJnZiO+U0JX@mail.gmail.com> <4D7915FF.50300@callenish.com> <AANLkTik557Y=tvpA-CypTgrGpxJTtfscmFuGKi0YEt0d@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikbObWcOzFZGrS=yWZqzVdpm6z4j2B+WfEbqQWX@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=Dc355npia4g3zijYOrt0BfiwbX9bUGzXa=Cq1@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikaECyZ-jQ+pX1eOezBrGTajrBk6TwNQ7ZCE1GY@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin-6t=yyPKqBJ38WsNBy5+b4d5MmKpPmdNfh0UQ@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimvZ_dX6-6Gt5BW3-cUHmZm1pq=nYm8HTsykbW3@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinPp5bCrwhy1oWvZZvt0VCzN=rDjKgz7inq7nrO@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:59:58 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTin7=_ywd8M-A4yZ=fQ=nTyHSLzeV34Jgyi+JCps@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com>
To: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Masking only Payload/Extension Data
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 10 Mar 2011 19:58:42 -0000

Certainly not for a computer.  (But I'm getting older and it's
becoming difficult to xor in my head these days.)

But any extra work is extra work, and if the agent is manipulating
frames without processing them then its likely performance is a
concern.  Not that I really think xor'ing a few bytes is going to cost
enough clock cycles to matter.

My vote is thus: ambivalent; with a logically weak prejudice for
unmasked headers.


On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:49 PM, John Tamplin <jat@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:36 PM, David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Afterthought:  an unmasked header would allow Websocket aware
>> intermediaries to manipulate frames without unmasking them.
>> Websocket aware load balancers and distributed frameworks come to
>> mind.
>
> Right, that has been the main objection (by my estimation anyway) to masking
> the header.  However, unmasking 2-10 bytes doesn't seem like a large
> burden.
> --
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email