Re: [hybi] deflate-stream and masking

David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com> Wed, 20 July 2011 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dendicott@gmail.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 E17AA21F8A6F for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 4CbDPqyYWB2U for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2A221F8A62 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so440771wwe.13 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=+6bispiNA4UJviBbrAPIDvo41EKQtdMaQ88Bz5L60mQ=; b=pXCmiizqNjR5MOweqB8Df28lYtjf5f4DlX0zCDI56n3KC/Z2EBS769IdXl7NJItYsF z0bdUG0F5KG5dVhB26G7bwKlBL3iF5ONJ6dYQTvKPE2r6C6w5CfMD0PcXpqbgLcK8WBF Xem6YelFKF8/aS4AWB3vI5I4XC6D+5lLIRF+w=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.63.21 with SMTP id z21mr126782wec.3.1311195940682; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.39.197 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABLsOLAsHLuqkDQRvgEaXaT325K1YbK78_jGuuj+Xaxvsrwx3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=UVMAd1nER6mRBe7zoD29CSbCkGA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NFMdr1ZU2dfy9mCRepZc2R_hnzg0oa3kYPKhWY-FX_8Og@mail.gmail.com> <CAE8AN_V-P2L0mVwjPQYxAypJ67=QWKAhWnDqrM_XmDQXjJbEHA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=HmZM9H2i+rFLVNrJVzfQT2qSPzWRm4gQXc2wTQ8fdBTA@mail.gmail.com> <00b801cc470a$d2d5e520$7881af60$@noemax.com> <CAP992=Gvz7CT=fZSX=t_7J3YAGF7kKsA9a6M0UQJP3HXxMBANQ@mail.gmail.com> <1311190993.1862.135.camel@ds9> <4E273125.8070503@stpeter.im> <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C114038FBE3@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <1311192266.1862.138.camel@ds9> <CAP992=F4hCgsm_yg6kkSK_PqVehLm=Xam3zB8oy6JBDTk9ub9A@mail.gmail.com> <CABLsOLAEE02pNHAUBBXzJKqCeQU-ozbesOpa9BtEgKXBQWceaw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP992=EDtzc5h88AQuzSCgaZO025e8R3yMWU72pn9kndfUGHVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABLsOLAsHLuqkDQRvgEaXaT325K1YbK78_jGuuj+Xaxvsrwx3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:05:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAP992=Fr4rMDzCksfH9++=QAP9wR5DTupg07HOrkm_qU=fT0og@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com>
To: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd3b54e467b2604a88698c2
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] deflate-stream and masking
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, 20 Jul 2011 21:05:43 -0000

My reading and my concern (and the de-lurking to comment) is that it seems
its possible the client might request it, get refused and close the
connection instead of continuing.

But, of course, browsers would never do anything like that to influence
protocol implementations, would they?


On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:58 PM, John Tamplin <jat@google.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 4:55 PM, David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
>
>> Agreed.   The vast majority of (unencrypted, unmasked, unmangled) content
>> will benefit from compression.   That is a truth I cannot debate.
>>
>> My use cases will not.    My "slowness" concern is latency, not
>> throughput.   My traffic will be many small messages and arrives at the WS
>> layer already encrypted, so compression doesn't work for me to any great
>> extent.   The turn-around latency of XHR is my biggest concern.   The HTTP
>> request/response cycle is my problem.   WS solves my latency concerns, and
>> beyond that I'd like it to just stay out of my way.
>>
>> I acknowledge that other peoples needs will differ from mine.   I'm just
>> lazy enough to want to avoid doing work I don't need.
>>
>
> Then even if the w3c position that all clients request deflate-stream
> stands, then your server is free to refuse that extension.  Likewise if
> deflate-frame is requested.
>
> --
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>