IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Experiment comparing Upgrade and CONNECT handshakes

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 01 December 2010 18:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 BEA193A6B46 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:58:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.886
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.490, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 r0C4VIcqeBMG for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81153A6C8A for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:58:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so3483777gxk.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:00:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.232.6 with SMTP id e6mr2050291agh.52.1291230005614; Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:00:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.90.154.19 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:00:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20101201184828.GH19021@1wt.eu>
References: <AANLkTik0wR-Oag5YJJDmdiSy67WW6TMaHmqWEo4o5kGW@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimwEtKrJm5KxTYZ4wrtONBYDTGjE5LF7__AHBEU@mail.gmail.com> <20101201183540.GF19021@1wt.eu> <AANLkTi=r-is4ZqJc6itsaBkyrmW746xXj8OV78M_Qbi3@mail.gmail.com> <20101201184828.GH19021@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:00:05 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinLmAdKr3gOkk-k=TXPX-HhX0xea5r_AkgfM=cP@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636284f60ced93904965de9ff"
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
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 18:58:52 -0000

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 01:43:59PM -0500, John Tamplin wrote:
> > AFAIK, the Hello frames do not appear in any draft and only in Greg's
> > proposal.  Personally, I am not sure what exactly they buy us and I
> > don't know if we want to pay the extra round trip for them.
>
> I'm sorry, I thought we had that in -03. At some point I'm getting lost
> between proposals and drafts :-)
>
> > So, if we really want this to be incremental, it would be a change
> > from Ian's last draft.
>
> That's what I wanted indeed.
>
> > As I understand it, these are the components of Adam's latest proposal:
> >  1) use CONNECT instead of GET+Upgrade
> >  2) use a fixed, bogus host header and mask the real headers
> >  3) mask all payload data
>

I thought that we already agreed on this point weeks ago.

-Ekr

>  4) encode the headers as JSON
>
> I think we agree on the process then !
>
> Cheers,
> Willy
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email