Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-05.txt

Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com> Fri, 11 February 2011 03:12 UTC

Return-Path: <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.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 CE3133A682D for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:12:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.293
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.293 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.305, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 qp3oNDJyo13F for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:12:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mail3.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78263A682B for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:12:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.159) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:12:51 -0800
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.68) by TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.2; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:12:51 -0800
Received: from TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.5.102]) by TK5EX14MLTW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.68]) with mapi; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:12:50 -0800
From: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
To: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>, "Yutaka_Takeda@playstation.sony.com" <Yutaka_Takeda@playstation.sony.com>
Thread-Topic: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-05.txt
Thread-Index: AQHLx+Yo0UGFDYibWUW5Td4aH6DkiZP7GWkAgABTTACAADQ8IA==
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 03:12:50 +0000
Message-ID: <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1126E08965@TK5EX14MBXW605.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
References: <20110208231502.31262.8249.idtracker@localhost> <OF44DCAB38.CFF4042C-ON88257833.0030697C-88257833.003C5A3E@playstation.sony.com> <AANLkTimdy0tQrdMHdN7bX7ty=A47qr9oag+nAcx3RtqR@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimdy0tQrdMHdN7bX7ty=A47qr9oag+nAcx3RtqR@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1126E08965TK5EX14MBXW605w_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] I-D Action:draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-05.txt
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: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 03:12:38 -0000

Just responding to one point:



“No, see 4.4.  Only control frames can be sent in the middle of a fragmented message (I believe the "open question" line is out of date -- I think the consensus was that control frames can be injected in the middle of a fragmented message, otherwise the latency of responding to ping, for example, would be very long if behind a large message), and control frames cannot be fragmented. “


Agree, I think this can be deleted from 4.4:

   o  _Note: There is an open question as to whether control frames be
      interjected in the middle of a fragmented message.  If so, it must
      be decided whether they be fragmented (which would require keeping
      a stack of "in-progress" messages)._

I also believe we agreed that the answer to the first questions is “yes”. Regardless, it is logical. For example, you might want to send a Ping (the delay between fragments may be large as the data is produced) or more obviously, a Close.

And the answer to the second has already been settled in the draft for at least a couple of releases as “control messages cannot be fragmented”. Deleting the above means adding a sentence in 4.5 (control frames) the the effect that “Control frames can be interjected in the middle of a fragmented message.”