Re: [hybi] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6455 (4919)

Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> Fri, 24 February 2017 03:11 UTC

Return-Path: <tyoshino@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 893361294DB for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:11:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3LUpxc9zbNdS for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:11:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22f.google.com (mail-wm0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 658A51294E8 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:11:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id v77so5014879wmv.0 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:11:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=v4kXw/jN1WJc5ESCW1l80pvfuwSHOGhKpxChrhlzqq0=; b=POafeW4+JrKXVrm0bs+Bk7bR6gCrCwApYAe3/QgQoc40mstZMk3crmIyXTICvlezZm 7S8GI6kdWYAwvfquWQI2GAUs6ASgC52pGmTQJlFwM0ALCFQNgRu01A7ymNfuAL8Yvk+8 KRnayDhZwHvm4SgqPY3ypkWRJGsTIyAAlkEVaxrXuFqNEnl4r2jWLVD0w9kWBoRflBxP CTXdtFOeOk7nkfd1sShQMxQ0Sa4mG7qu5xEWE5j3uIa8ivgtZ0ReTB2/2CjeUy2kc65X mWqbRcTXQaI2igICFSyjcKfcPjXywjQCaDJNBdP4Yn5xJCw75mJgW3LKFTH3f2SAV+Dy fPCQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=v4kXw/jN1WJc5ESCW1l80pvfuwSHOGhKpxChrhlzqq0=; b=gHCgwailnjUyRzsOeXcMdiD5moc0SWc9aJvx/CP67Y1m4/6no5gGtp9EsTdkdE7yws 9XJc2UcA5vjg+2WEmDtZUAvXvvstZx63dsVLBqgqJMSoUmf8WNBXrdqufaBC9b/hGAGd QcdSzrgNJ56rkkZR6wzaM7aAPqfrzer0Kh9HLafNQmUATYy1myHYtKVTpzw7Cchs5CCz d8iAhDwcW70Zdup2ZCZu1TaJwxT8yBAiibhcFcy6qpRWHtfMH6CbjXJLJfYiMuurDM1l 8JBvbKqe8Wh8Sj8WqzOInFKurQqD1TMtXoNzHrKm5rfkGuxEHfi8IemqX/dFYrY8dOT/ uSQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lj6kNodNV5UgvtyBUM6qvWEyRthauM7fV2H51NUkcwPpiOPbAVg719p9eRyiRCOBj42S6f/yPOOg2ZWG4H
X-Received: by 10.28.199.135 with SMTP id x129mr627123wmf.21.1487905903828; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:11:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.176.130 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:11:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20170128020150.36D22B81E36@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20170128020150.36D22B81E36@rfc-editor.org>
From: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:11:23 +0900
Message-ID: <CAH9hSJZqaRBnbJK7y+1vXxobmDNzaqEBpTQiaxStqzGzk_96Gg@mail.gmail.com>
To: jeffersoncarpenter2@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0d3f6edbc15005493e1646
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/vAotzPCRpBaTdWKnBVleD900nQE>
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6455 (4919)
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 24 Feb 2017 03:11:46 -0000

What a received 1001 status code means can be determined by what kind of
endpoint the endpoint is talking with, a server or a client.

There's no need to let some part of the protocol be able to tell to the
peer distinction whether a certain endpoint is a client or a server. One
started handshake by establishing a connection at the underlying protocol
level and sent a handshake request is a client, and the other is a server.

Not sure if such a clarification should be in the spec. But I think at
least we don't need to have separate close codes to distinguish them.