IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-13.txt

Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> Wed, 07 September 2011 12:30 UTC

Return-Path: <tyoshino@google.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 5888021F8C33 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 05:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.826
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.826 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 U2twjRliH2MI for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 05:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A944621F8C3A for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 05:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq1.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq1.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.1]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p87CWTUJ021088 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 05:32:29 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1315398754; bh=yNOzbPnPQiN8apCpL9n0vzvUNDA=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=kYUfT6AD8PPVSGkrRYID+QWdaLM8ucMG4nRkMyG9E2yC5P2vbAT8xFhgr2uapbOn5 uuLSx3BxTNHlskFuIY2cg==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=FZ0JA3N88KgzfmYCcYe8OTLEhmq2VUOVKLX2HbGCraV90lkVOEdd/2smwBKxaTVFq /7I9/HtmzTBC+D7ds25/g==
Received: from yxk38 (yxk38.prod.google.com [10.190.3.166]) by hpaq1.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p87CVEod016508 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 05:32:27 -0700
Received: by yxk38 with SMTP id 38so3083656yxk.26 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=irpvzsACoRfBzWDbTenxyaivVWd2HNkEyDfqB2AAsLk=; b=oFJ+SnkNfE7mlujjGGz59GBvodZPLfv9H847aeZ1jCuI0Y1YJ2SrAoEvg3g5wv/Bsf arV3KB27nxghWRy7BKHg==
Received: by 10.150.225.6 with SMTP id x6mr1369883ybg.57.1315398747277; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.225.6 with SMTP id x6mr1369877ybg.57.1315398747145; Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.158.6 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 05:32:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110907085128.GA19144@1wt.eu>
References: <20110831184207.1514.64093.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0fc901cc6878$1681eec0$0a00a8c0@Venus> <CAH9hSJb2rH+fX0AnekYxsEkHKzb15aHrg_hDQw1baWLiWBF-3w@mail.gmail.com> <17b501cc6d31$3016d6d0$0a00a8c0@Venus> <CAH9hSJYhLpcXrOtS-nzLt2YW9QbngEsfdcNF+0TadyVA6rrK1A@mail.gmail.com> <17ef01cc6d39$3575ae50$0a00a8c0@Venus> <20110907085128.GA19144@1wt.eu>
From: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:32:06 +0900
Message-ID: <CAH9hSJYXZ285L_+eJh6VUVCAg4D+u=vQbcjVOA4RMsJSbcHqiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd483240fc4be04ac5923c8"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-13.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: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:30:50 -0000

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 17:51, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 09:36:14AM +0100, Len Holgate wrote:
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > So, will server to client masking become MUST NOT in the next draft?
>
> Adding "MUST NOT" in a spec always causes issues in implementations
> because the receivers expect that the case never happens and generally
> don't handle the situation gracefully. Basically, the on-wire protocol
> makes it possible to enable or disable masking so we don't need to put
>

Yes. That's unexpected side-effect of addition of MASK bit. Without the
flag, there was no information in a frame if it's masked or not so client
just had to follow what the spec says. So, client never encountered such
situation.

But we don't have to keep it as legal frame just because it's possible.


> specific conditions on the cases we're not interested in.
>

We should make the spec clear on whether WebSocket client implementation
must be prepared for masked frame or not. I'm fine once it's clear.

Takeshi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email