IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Ping/Pong body (was Re: TSV-Directorate review of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-07)

Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> Fri, 20 May 2011 06:55 UTC

Return-Path: <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.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 56C7CE06A7 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2011 23:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 rB59BkNXcHhH for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 May 2011 23:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F09EE0655 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 May 2011 23:55:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c17ae00000262e-7d-4dd6106ebb77
Received: from esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 07.58.09774.E6016DD4; Fri, 20 May 2011 08:55:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0197.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Fri, 20 May 2011 08:55:42 +0200
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 182242441 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2011 09:55:42 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D6050F32 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2011 09:55:41 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from n211.nomadiclab.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 898F150357 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 May 2011 09:55:41 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4DD6106D.5000805@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 09:55:41 +0300
From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hybi@ietf.org
References: <ED13A76FCE9E96498B049688227AEA292C6A81E4@TK5EX14MBXC206.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <F390D8D1-335B-4595-93A2-0741DD693559@gmail.com> <ED13A76FCE9E96498B049688227AEA292C6A85DE@TK5EX14MBXC206.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <BANLkTimg6Z8rs+SDp-HX+FzJQukKndWqkg@mail.gmail.com> <83059ABD-9F8A-49AB-86AB-B6345CDD9C39@gmail.com> <1305769359.383.133.camel@ds9>
In-Reply-To: <1305769359.383.133.camel@ds9>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [hybi] Ping/Pong body (was Re: TSV-Directorate review of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-07)
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: Fri, 20 May 2011 06:55:45 -0000

On 5/19/11 4:42 AM, Patrick McManus wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 18:23 -0700, Brian McKelvey wrote:
>> Indeed.. It's simpler for the protocol to state that a pong should be sent in response to a ping and leave it at that.
>>
> agreed - I'm not seeing a compelling reason to make any particular
> change from -07, though I would expect implementations to use it much
> more conservatively than is allowed. And that's ok.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
(as individual)

I am OK with the 0x00 and 0x01 proposal to distinguish unsolicited pings

and with the fact that to simplify the current spec and let room for 
future extensions
  the ping/pong frames (in the current spec) should not carry any 
application payload
  and so no need to correlate ping/pong data


and yes I agree with the Brian text proposal (above)


cheers
/Sal

-- 
Salvatore Loreto
www.sloreto.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email