Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes

[Maciej Stachowiak <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 1, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Willy Tarreau <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 01:43:59PM -0500, John Tamplin wrote:
> > AFAIK, the Hello frames do not appear in any draft and only in Greg's
> > proposal.  Personally, I am not sure what exactly they buy us and I
> > don't know if we want to pay the extra round trip for them.
> 
> I'm sorry, I thought we had that in -03. At some point I'm getting lost
> between proposals and drafts :-)
> 
> > So, if we really want this to be incremental, it would be a change
> > from Ian's last draft.
> 
> That's what I wanted indeed.
> 
> > As I understand it, these are the components of Adam's latest proposal:
> >  1) use CONNECT instead of GET+Upgrade
> >  2) use a fixed, bogus host header and mask the real headers
> >  3) mask all payload data
> 
> I thought that we already agreed on this point weeks ago.

I think what's new now is that we are approaching consensus on adopting point (1).

It sounds like we don't yet have consensus on (2) - people would rather adopt (1) first, and then examine it further.

I don't recall the state of the discussion on (3). I think the new XOR-masking likely addresses the concerns with the original AES masking.

Regards,
Maciej