Re: [hybi] Fragmented text message

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Thu, 21 July 2011 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.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 6190721F8779 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 aI1P9D0p79Ty for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18BD921F8770 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:26:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.88]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p6LHQ4CI003659 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:26:05 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1311269165; bh=DP3Pk/xlaQbylByXROfkQKgaIkc=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=sQncVdqZMCulPUXHJTORc2QVd9+KGznqzJ6rQ6PivpRgBvfQkgiUA0owFpi6h8wh7 WA/pdCN906fxlR5ktWJZA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=GjJGsI0JxFgROC06pJkxJLUHzXx+u8FjG0WsY2M6CFjqgabiA2PMqnPTzKayUahkZ F2/wz9xR4EiGztXLucfNw==
Received: from qwj9 (qwj9.prod.google.com [10.241.195.73]) by wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p6LHMvF4016382 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:26:03 -0700
Received: by qwj9 with SMTP id 9so860256qwj.7 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=R70PtXH12jXOD5E+kgiShYGXlmdu4sK6v+MzSkdFluE=; b=uLUox6Qsp26W/9C6kp1qVY7SHgS141+XqI204l0+mvHIqetCdzjGaRNyGGhUqFJ6se vHjGBSl3gZ9P2uLT+I3g==
Received: by 10.229.44.36 with SMTP id y36mr454577qce.227.1311269163111; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.84.11 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP992=Gh8ZQzHnNQ==Z-oPoR=dcxwE6JcHBVmwNwBrnViCAttw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <EC24CA2C319E8D47ACA5E181ABEC3E7B13BA5205BB@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <CAE8AN_UmK-r2OskQG+QuRPgAWOg7S0BN6vfKLyDPPp2fAFDReQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJYMJbswzpsnEmDz1CLF6bAKQQ954xyzrJ6=T1t4DoW4uw@mail.gmail.com> <ED13A76FCE9E96498B049688227AEA29388ADF4D@TK5EX14MBXC206.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <CAP992=Gh8ZQzHnNQ==Z-oPoR=dcxwE6JcHBVmwNwBrnViCAttw@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:25:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CABLsOLBw5eqc1bTPOBLKmfE4KPsfkLVg6-d4P2WVHgWJcTQg8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636459338ac144704a897a4df
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Fragmented text message
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: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:26:07 -0000

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:11 PM, David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

> Would that not then require that the websocket peer and any websocket aware
> intermediaries examine and understand the content of the frames?   (ie. to
> be able to tell if a UTF sequence is being split).
>
> That seems, to me, to be highly impractical.  Or even impossible.
>

Correct -- it seems much better to allow fragmentation at any byte boundary.
 Defragmentation of a text message already requires keeping state -- having
to keep state for a partial character seems hardly any extra burden.

-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google