Re: [hybi] how do we move forward on agreeing on framing?

gustav trede <gustav.trede@gmail.com> Thu, 19 August 2010 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <gustav.trede@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 003EA3A6A30 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:02:20 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kg11TB+OoYTW for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD10A3A6961 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so1542438eyd.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=bM96lfiV9fVjPeatvuLQeDMM8x1dwrQ4fxLrZQTAnic=; b=Eh2bPX6r1jfp2cryqofG93uAw0jQpoK2XHgkJ+63ShdzhacJkXO9SWA98ng0xY0Ywd z5DnOaDqu5A/zqUdR/wMbqaiu0FtVT0zjnp2CYg1/uJhuDg/1aZyYnMOCyoHRfmuwCia JiGL7oI4hi3ZZV1OLs2nL9uKvYFzVMStwsHX0=
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; b=kKA0VW8KvYc3RkIcNCZET3WpUas/2XCqkpxd/TN4cwWo4stOhx1qknL3SrwD/xMBGn 5QljMAvkUqTfXMahLKffFOKZ0QHSlMuabjYkFi6B5hTcl8YguSljBSBWH1jwFkB4jMlM 87KgOyqHZDjublAUzJ7F8o3LNlRZFZEM09vLg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.1.77 with SMTP id 55mr66292wec.72.1282237356008; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.172.139 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim44=x0BRpF3BYMqS9GNzHA+icG818JgfRRaFPT@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTineuhvGsC_vca6AiAX8OmHdkE-7s7rA1DQtjtMm@mail.gmail.com> <1282231803.22142.649.camel@vulcan.aspl.local> <AANLkTim44=x0BRpF3BYMqS9GNzHA+icG818JgfRRaFPT@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:02:35 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=tw7PPQzn4U0qEO7dDKncWUt0J8eUK2QBoHq90@mail.gmail.com>
From: gustav trede <gustav.trede@gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016364c7a4d1f6ab0048e3026c6"
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] how do we move forward on agreeing on framing?
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, 19 Aug 2010 17:02:20 -0000

> > So here is another attempt at incorporating feedback to try and get
>> > something which could gain consensus as the framing protocol:
>> >       * MORE - 1 bit - if set, this is not the final frame of the
>> >         message
>> >       * TML - 1 bit - if set, the total message length is included
>> >         (which is not required to be on the first frame, and if
>> >         repeated overrides earlier values so it may be used as an
>> >         estimate for dynamic content)
>> >       * Reserved - 2 bits - must be 0 except for private use
>> >       * Opcode - 4 bits - 0=Continuation, 1=Control, 2=Text, 3=Binary,
>> >         4-11=Reserved for future assignment, 12-15=Reserved for
>> >         private use
>> >       * Reserved - 1 bit - must be 0
>> >       * Length - 7 bits - payload length in octets; if 127, then there
>> >         is an extended length
>> >       * Extended length - 8 bytes - payload length in octets (high bit
>> >         must be 0 for ease of use with languages without an unsigned
>> >         data type), present only if Length=127
>>
>
Seems good to me.
Only one thing that i fail to understand, regarding the payload length
encoding:
What technical reason makes it so much better then the original binary frame
length encoding( if (byte[i]&0x80)==0x80) to detect the length bytes) that
its rather massive waste of bandwidth is justified ?.

regards
 gustav trede