IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes

Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> Wed, 01 December 2010 00:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@adambarth.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 AF1883A6C32 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:52:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.814, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Cl7JpWkfl3gj for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:52:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8953A6BCF for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:52:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws7 with SMTP id 7so2326119vws.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:53:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.193.7 with SMTP id ds7mr2161850vcb.97.1291164804957; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y14sm1199724vch.28.2010.11.30.16.53.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:53:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so8078300iwn.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:53:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.17.1 with SMTP id q1mr8090871iba.153.1291164802912; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:53:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.12.77 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:52:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BB31C4AB95A70042A256109D46199126057903CE@XCH117CNC.rim.net>
References: <AANLkTim_8g-Cb01si00EkvCK5BtXUx3zHsUee1F6JqsD@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimSu1fOGCg0gqX2EFh4v-MkpZuY_-onm3+TO_Z0@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimYpdp-75BQSmhAUfyrQv19LvzF1ouznst+ANUG@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikbycTS51Ein9ybbZ52zcrViFCNBjCmpRGD3yCk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim=_Ey_7tSJ0H8OKzip-UcwtJ=YMG5wf_f_qnty@mail.gmail.com> <20101127071644.GB26428@1wt.eu> <AANLkTi=Rqu-hm=Jy-GFf706smD8zEHbeD-oP7dNCN6Ro@mail.gmail.com> <20101127161638.GE26428@1wt.eu> <AANLkTi=snwcb8F89KjpD8tQUYSSBr6YF1OdaGgr1e9Xa@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=2M1ubEgR44PL7JpydkaZaOwwimuvhJq=E30+A@mail.gmail.com> <4CF1EFF9.7040803@caucho.com> <AANLkTimotYL70P3Rqwz3uFbf=G3JERkUJqqdEhU6eMEb@mail.gmail.com> <4CF3E676.8040001@caucho.com> <AANLkTimn92qXDa+7HNW79bSSHhEryH0kPCYYbkDsUZRZ@mail.gmail.com> <4CF3F563.3050808@caucho.com> <AANLkTimW3CP-B9TuXhtRYr051eExkMgZPT_Rm7XMp8NK@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimgs8Sw_Witxk+T4tx0_+vHiXdA=Hv6b1wQ4mey@mail.gmail.com> <BB31C4AB95A70042A256109D46199126057903CE@XCH117CNC.rim.net>
From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:52:51 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=EVFF+_Yo-mhu9qWJ5myc6J3tOm-AWK-0Y3L0X@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joe Mason <jmason@rim.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes
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: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:52:15 -0000

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Joe Mason <jmason@rim.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: hybi-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:hybi-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Adam Barth
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 6:27 PM
>> To: Brian
>> Cc: Hybi
>> Subject: Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes
>>
>> That's the most up-to-date version.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Brian <theturtle32@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Adam, since it's been a while and I've lost the link to the new
>> > handshake proposal, can you verify for me (and others) that this is
>> > the most up-to-date version that I should be reading?
>> >
>> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-websocket-handshake-01
>
> I noticed that version uses XOR for masking, while your paper mentioned using AES.  Are you planning to update this proposal to use AES as well?  (Also, now that I've read the thing, here's another vote for rewriting it in declarative style.)

The paper describes what we believe to be the best handshake.
draft-abarth-websocket-handshake represents a sequence of compromises
we've made with this working group.  It seems likely we'll compromise
more as time goes on.  As such, draft-abarth-websocket-handshake is
the "most up-to-date" version.

Adam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email