Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09.txt

"Andy Green (林安廸)" <andy@warmcat.com> Tue, 14 June 2011 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@warmcat.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 89A2E11E812E for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 AJxORNZ8v07W for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from warmcat.com (warmcat.com [87.106.134.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99DB811E8072 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DF7A9ED.3000609@warmcat.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:35:25 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?IkFuZHkgR3JlZW4gKOael+WuieW7uCki?= <andy@warmcat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110531 Fedora/3.1.10-2.fc16 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
References: <20110613233745.27187.94588.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BANLkTik3Lgp9H4EW1BwRj=n+OQFz6YN547A4y69SysoF7UXnzw@mail.gmail.com> <1308062227.1944.162.camel@ds9> <BANLkTim3PT8y3+u-99BRVb1WwzFUZyxAXQ@mail.gmail.com> <1308074802.1944.175.camel@ds9>
In-Reply-To: <1308074802.1944.175.camel@ds9>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-09.txt
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: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:35:43 -0000

On 06/14/2011 07:06 PM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 10:02 -0700, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>> There was an email to the chairs pointing out that unknown values in
>> reserved bits vs unknown opcode values were handled differently. The
>> chairs discussed and asked me to make them both fail.
>>
>
> I'm confused.
>
> In -08 an unknown RSV* mandates a MUST ignore, and an unknown opcode
> also mandates a MUST ignore. That seems like a match to me.
>
> In -09 unknown RSV* mandates a FAIL, and unknown opcode mandates an
> ignore.
>
> how does that mesh with what was done?

I guess it can make sense, the opcode has a length so you can skip it 
okay even if you don't understand what's inside.

But RSV bits might mess with the framing so you can't interpret the 
length correctly any more, you're dead in the water then for skipping it.

-Andy