IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] IESG note?, was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Tue, 06 September 2011 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8AE21F8ED0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.923
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QWRCHUpkKy9n for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642F421F8F0B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:42:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz5.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz5.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.69]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p86LiTfC028949 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:44:30 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1315345470; bh=o4caqF6kTlXwXCAidkoIIpYsZWU=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=F9H+NPFv+Ug+xab5BX6q1Nanz3xtF9Ppph/B8u0aGQcOBqAjdsynRcZi5kLBDhefc OnBee+PVQ6QV+v4vHo/9w==
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=H5qgYZQqjAZoax8f/pXzwdWvDtuYKQQSBAl27eNdlytXU+ylGKyVEFSZwRspTcWu6 C/TjaV7HjvrSb0QTMYy7w==
Received: from gwaa12 (gwaa12.prod.google.com [10.200.27.12]) by wpaz5.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p86Li8rp000704 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:44:28 -0700
Received: by gwaa12 with SMTP id a12so4282266gwa.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:28 -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=btm8Zk7mwD8JKRmEfidsDfIPEPq6Znnb0uQVOihla+g=; b=RzOQA5GsMLdybwogKU1sU0O9v6xhCMQeq+z79m/kJd3RxFOzZbfAnBNYS5HY00FmgO oUw0b543YCIR778GBmKg==
Received: by 10.151.21.9 with SMTP id y9mr4083082ybi.344.1315345468317; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.21.9 with SMTP id y9mr4083074ybi.344.1315345468160; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.49.7 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6D173AD1-5BB7-4F35-BE93-9E62E600DB60@bbn.com>
References: <20110711140229.17432.23519.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5355F3EF-DD59-4D3C-9578-84043A3B8E90@gbiv.com> <4E620772.9090900@gmx.de> <4E6228F9.2030108@gmx.de> <20110903194323.GA19164@1wt.eu> <C673E88C-D969-427E-B032-8695C7952253@bbn.com> <4E668B2C.4050707@cs.tcd.ie> <6D173AD1-5BB7-4F35-BE93-9E62E600DB60@bbn.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:44:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CABLsOLBQcc0S-JjG2Gg3HW+hqingUot0F8PMEAACWZLLTH2dig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [hybi] IESG note?, was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt> (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
To: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd4b2d662fb6604ac4cbb45"
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:46:56 -0700
Cc: iesg@iesg.org, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 21:42:44 -0000

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Richard L. Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:

> > I personally think the masking thing is pretty ugly. But I
> > have to (reluctantly) admit I think it does what its
> > supposed to do. At this stage I think it comes down to
> > either doing the masking or not using port 80.
>
> I'm sort of of the same feeling.  I don't disagree that masking solves the
> problem it sets out to.  The question is whether there are other ways to
> solve the problem that are simpler, with fewer side effects.
>

Please, let's not reopen months of discussion about exactly that topic.
 Many alternatives were proposed, and XOR masking was the only thing that we
could get consensus on as reasonably acceptable to everyone.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email