Re: [hybi] Review of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-13

Tobias Oberstein <tobias.oberstein@tavendo.de> Tue, 06 September 2011 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <tobias.oberstein@tavendo.de>
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 62B3321F899F for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.497
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LEbcSbrjT7af for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXHUB020-3.exch020.serverdata.net (exhub020-3.exch020.serverdata.net [206.225.164.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEF321F8477 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EXVMBX020-12.exch020.serverdata.net ([169.254.3.209]) by EXHUB020-3.exch020.serverdata.net ([206.225.164.30]) with mapi; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:07:59 -0700
From: Tobias Oberstein <tobias.oberstein@tavendo.de>
To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>, Philipp Serafin <phil127@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:06:55 -0700
Thread-Topic: [hybi] Review of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-13
Thread-Index: AcxspdODmKx/GSqHQkuIzJfIzLdQ6gAADncA
Message-ID: <634914A010D0B943A035D226786325D422C0EB8D2D@EXVMBX020-12.exch020.serverdata.net>
References: <942CCA6B-B784-441B-96CA-3506FFC439E1@bbn.com> <CALiegfmyQ5h4S2FgBnrh2VLr8+q-h0sLiGsww7T+1VwYNRo4wQ@mail.gmail.com> <72E40A0F-C923-472F-9534-538B89F7A444@bbn.com> <CAMaigV=0S+Q=A=RwS-j1Hy70EuuTtjYgrm+VW3ecorMb6U_3Nw@mail.gmail.com> <A5C9AECF-2CD6-480B-BE27-2A035CD6BE40@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <A5C9AECF-2CD6-480B-BE27-2A035CD6BE40@bbn.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Review of draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-13
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: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:06:13 -0000

> Using the above definition, I guess validating the overall message makes
> sense.  The one remaining concern that I would have would be if fragmented
> frames are used for streaming.  An application could start processing data
> and get deep into the middle of a stream before it recognized an error.
> Whereas if each frame had to be UTF-8 valid, then intermediate results
> would all be UTF-8 valid as well.

A _single_ frame can be up to 2^63 octets, and a message can consist of
an infinite sequence of frames.

Requiring frame boundaries to observe utf-8 code point boundaries is
not a solution for "fail fast on invalid utf-8".

An incremental utf-8 validator is one - and works regardless of boundaries
or frame length.