IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Handshake was: The WebSocket protocol issues.

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Thu, 30 September 2010 12:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mcmanus@ducksong.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 510153A6BE5 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 05:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Hx0kW7sXztNP for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 05:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from linode.ducksong.com (linode.ducksong.com [64.22.125.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466513A6AD2 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 05:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Patrick-McManuss-MacBook.local (cpe-67-253-92-25.maine.res.rr.com [67.253.92.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by linode.ducksong.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05E4C10157 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:19:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4CA48043.8010408@ducksong.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 08:19:15 -0400
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: hybi@ietf.org
References: <AANLkTim+fXj-h6OS3OdcfVfh3Q1UwxD8NLVawb=AWHX+@mail.gmail.com> <4FAC5C93-9BDF-4752-AFBC-162D718397AB@apple.com> <AANLkTikcH1W3bQwumqHbe-Yqa3XdoJqCa2b-mZuvoQ7g@mail.gmail.com> <9746E847-DC8B-45A7-ADF3-2ADB9DA7F82E@apple.com> <AANLkTik9igUwoxVrktoBoZrPoUW=Tjh7HyVbGJgQYes-@mail.gmail.com> <9F595226-FA0A-4C38-A6D0-0F4214BD7D21@apple.com> <20100929171550.GB8583@1wt.eu> <D82A525D-5F37-4392-AE8A-A5246E5694F3@apple.com> <20100929204518.GD10026@1wt.eu> <6B4FE9F4-37E9-4D72-9325-9014F725373E@apple.com> <20100930054727.GE10026@1wt.eu>
In-Reply-To: <20100930054727.GE10026@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [hybi] Handshake was: The WebSocket protocol issues.
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: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:18:36 -0000

  On 9/30/10 1:47 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 06:40:52PM -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> The upgrade header won't be in random browser requests either. It's a
> well-defined part of the HTTP protocol with specific semantics. Let's
> be clear : I have no problem with looking at the WS nonce, and it is
> required too. I mean that we must not complexify the handshake "just in
> case". HTTP is a well-defined protocol with clear semantics. Some aspects
> of it are not well respected but most of them definitely are.
>

+1.

I think it is important that we clearly define this aspect of the 
handshake as "WS over HTTP Upgrade" as it reinforces the fact that this 
portion of the protocol _is_ HTTP and therefore HTTP rules apply - it 
isn't websockets specific jargon that happens to look like HTTP anymore.

Likewise we can also define "WS over plain TCP", "WS over TLS" etc..

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email