Re: [hybi] IESG note?, was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 06 September 2011 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 43C2F21F8EF8 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.573
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PYB5m4vAk6OL for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB1721F8F26 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p86LnNZC000765; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1315345768; bh=0NV/su6t0W2vrgrIUiASwfKMI8TF/ITdxQW5NaYPLYs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=1ZQBNyilC/8wMz/2KNlH7f5WM2AB+Xb3MMIdEGurs4LSAsu0yqGitCiQ7WHefkWLe hpMmCFR8qs/K1pH8K05rYCHGZPSN6IVcXBq8BIBCr6sVrx+rrMT/Ukn9Tpss8O9whN tm7C493KwcUVjvz7zBaFJNJQFnKyL/3RwRKMOqeE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1315345768; bh=0NV/su6t0W2vrgrIUiASwfKMI8TF/ITdxQW5NaYPLYs=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=XrmDKLVxD9l3deHT1wamTFUdL3eTg+Yb138P3uJaInNzjH7bldi8RZwRJ3Bgm6Kgg nb3VpFY5656rY6k/eAeJPm4BEDaZ5uOHNdj2SnLakIq8B0X9dOQeP2m94haiKTSD3Y 2TtktGGkTGne4k5m8JaEkcREMXEsfE5BTKtz0Z44=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110906144645.0a037868@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:48:44 -0700
To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6D173AD1-5BB7-4F35-BE93-9E62E600DB60@bbn.com>
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5355F3EF-DD59-4D3C-9578-84043A3B8E90@gbiv.com> <4E620772.9090900@gmx.de> <4E6228F9.2030108@gmx.de> <20110903194323.GA19164@1wt.eu> <C673E88C-D969-427E-B032-8695C7952253@bbn.com> <4E668B2C.4050707@cs.tcd.ie> <6D173AD1-5BB7-4F35-BE93-9E62E600DB60@bbn.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] IESG note?, was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
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, 06 Sep 2011 21:47:52 -0000

Hi Richard,
At 14:36 06-09-2011, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>Another interesting finding in that paper was that there were no 
>observed instances of a CONNECT-based variant of the protocol 
>successfully poisoning proxies (on the same sample set of ~54k 
>users).  This might lead one to think that the problem that masking 
>solves could also be avoided by using HTTP differently.  I think 
>that this option was discussed in the WG and decided against, but I 
>don't know why.

See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg04744.html

Regards,
-sm