IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Masking only Payload/Extension Data

David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com> Thu, 10 March 2011 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <dendicott@gmail.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 F117E3A6826 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:07:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 u3UvImR6fovA for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:07:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D533A6B46 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:07:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wyb42 with SMTP id 42so1994288wyb.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:08:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OQjphXKVrizhGdLH20maZfjDWtqLcZUS91og/0O4r50=; b=r76nVJwYPNHvHb0R+w6EWw5xIEHI3LTaWKWytRbdxNUTufxVM7mpkh7mo5n9f+hOUi cz4/z/v3fLZJiHX+pP1H0Zi8YoSlZBEI5MHQmmq0r1IXZkEuhdNbIFyht21WHtVs+fnn nXUEoLNXCmpmnjC1NmaOuDwm8uFYyHcHD+L4Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xz+geXj8tgF4W5w+l0nemgvBzT472aeHWd4+erX208Wa1FathJAk7pMxM5+Brxun+S 7+J+++E07SQRJAj05sViX3L32dn861U3/eabZhAi7eSXG9hGw7EWYwEHOw5HJBcQqLJf TQxRVqEdIDCiFBPl5mPYgaDTjHqm4VupEEHQ4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.242.131 with SMTP id i3mr6818687wer.106.1299784120271; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:08:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.122.13 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:08:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikbObWcOzFZGrS=yWZqzVdpm6z4j2B+WfEbqQWX@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4D77B885.5050109@callenish.com> <OF36FEDDC6.06951577-ON8825784E.0062343E-8825784E.0066AC27@playstation.sony.com> <AANLkTinau4g1pB_ccJ31u7WRi5npYtHvXE5YRn5uTbeV@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikB4YeaYiF_NVGn61c1YxpNWbmEWQZu1WcN+=Jf@mail.gmail.com> <1299704939.2606.238.camel@ds9.ducksong.com> <20110309214212.GA29190@1wt.eu> <AANLkTi=i=8aWg=6+T7=Kn5dWeKkW6MYVCH_CuNkt_ZMM@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimip9o0RoZaBfONCmg5nuJVWXjOKDKgAt8zrNVV@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikbFBeM6+hiURSBqxFyjc2Wc-yh8UJnZiO+U0JX@mail.gmail.com> <4D7915FF.50300@callenish.com> <AANLkTik557Y=tvpA-CypTgrGpxJTtfscmFuGKi0YEt0d@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikbObWcOzFZGrS=yWZqzVdpm6z4j2B+WfEbqQWX@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:08:40 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Dc355npia4g3zijYOrt0BfiwbX9bUGzXa=Cq1@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com>
To: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Masking only Payload/Extension Data
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, 10 Mar 2011 19:07:28 -0000

Sorry, I misunderstood the context of the conversation.

It would seem to me that it must go after the length field, or else
how does the server know how much of the following stream to unmask.
It would need to unmask enough of the header to determine the entire
frame size and then continue.  That seems an unnecessary burden and
complicates server reception processing.

+1 for masking (as silly as it is) after the header.


On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:52 PM, John Tamplin <jat@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:33 PM, David Endicott <dendicott@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Count me in as +1 in favour of no masking.
>
> We declared consensus long ago that we would require masking on
> client->server.  Your points below are nothing that wasn't brought up before
> that decision, so I don't see why we should revisit it.
> This discussion is about whether to have the mask before or after the
> opcode/length fields in the frame.
> --
> John A. Tamplin
> Software Engineer (GWT), Google
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email