On 9/3/11 1:43 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi Julian, Roy,
On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 03:17:45PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
Like that...:
The WebSocket protocol is designed with an assumption that
TCP port 80 or 443 will be used for the sake of tunneling raw
socket exchanges over
...@gmx.de; Roy T. Fieldingfield...@gbiv.com;
Server-Initiated HTTPh...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; i...@iesg.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] IESG note?,
was: Last Call: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt
(TheWebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
On 9/3/11 1:43 PM, Willy Tarreau
Hi Peter,
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:35:00AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Willy, I appreciate the proposed text. Here is a slightly tweaked version.
###
The WebSocket protocol is designed to supersede existing
bidirectional communication technologies which use HTTP as a
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 12:56:32PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Sep 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Joel Martin wrote:
You may feel that the wording of your note is not pejorative (because what
you wanted to say is so much more so), but the tone and wording come across
that way even if it is
, 2011 10:58
To: Willy Tarreau
Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Server-Initiated HTTP; ietf@ietf.org; i...@iesg.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] IESG note?, was: Last Call: draft-ietf-hybi-
thewebsocketprotocol-10.txt (The WebSocket protocol) to Proposed Standard
The way I'm reading this seems to imply
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 10:05:48PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Richard,
On 09/06/2011 06:57 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
IMO, this is a pretty strong argument against masking, given how low the
observed rate of buggy intermediaries is (~0.0017%) and how high the
observed rate of
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Richard L. Barnes rbar...@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.
Roy,
You may feel that the wording of your note is not pejorative (because what
you wanted to say is so much more so), but the tone and wording come across
that way even if it is technically accurate.
Having a note in the spec that WebSocket connections over port 80 and 443
wlll have traffic
Hi Julian, Roy,
On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 03:17:45PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
Like that...:
The WebSocket protocol is designed with an assumption that
TCP port 80 or 443 will be used for the sake of tunneling raw
socket exchanges over HTTP. The result is a convoluted and
+1. I like that phrasing. It summarizes the requirements document pretty
well
Yet it never was worded that way when this WG started debating mainly WS. In
fact, I don't recall any other protocol being discussed on this board so I
disagree with the term requirement in this very case.
--
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Sylvain Hellegouarch s...@defuze.org wrote:
+1. I like that phrasing. It summarizes the requirements document pretty
well
Yet it never was worded that way when this WG started debating mainly WS.
In fact, I don't recall any other protocol being discussed on
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Joel Martin h...@martintribe.org wrote:
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Sylvain Hellegouarch s...@defuze.org
wrote:
+1. I like that phrasing. It summarizes the requirements document pretty
well
Yet it never was worded that way when this WG started
On 2011-09-03 20:51, Joel Martin wrote:
Roy,
You may feel that the wording of your note is not pejorative (because
what you wanted to say is so much more so), but the tone and wording
come across that way even if it is technically accurate.
Having a note in the spec that WebSocket connections
On 9/3/11 4:54 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Hi,
I believe that almost everything Roy says below is non-controversial; if
we can tune the language to be less offensive it might fit well into the
Introduction (and not require an IESG Note to get into the document).
Indeed, it would be best if
The way I'm reading this seems to imply that the masking is there in
order to bypass intermediaries, which is absolutely not the case,
quite the opposite instead. The masking was introduced to avoid
getting stuck on supposedly buggy intermediaries that would search
for a valid HTTP request or
On Sep 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Joel Martin wrote:
You may feel that the wording of your note is not pejorative (because what
you wanted to say is so much more so), but the tone and wording come across
that way even if it is technically accurate.
Of course it is pejorative. How can I explain
Hi Richard,
On 09/06/2011 06:57 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
IMO, this is a pretty strong argument against masking, given how low the
observed rate of buggy intermediaries is (~0.0017%) and how high the observed
rate of malware propagation is.
I'm not sure what you're comparing there. Can
On 09/06/2011 06:57 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
IMO, this is a pretty strong argument against masking, given how low the
observed rate of buggy intermediaries is (~0.0017%) and how high the
observed rate of malware propagation is.
I'm not sure what you're comparing there. Can you
On 09/06/2011 10:36 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
On 09/06/2011 06:57 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
IMO, this is a pretty strong argument against masking, given how low the
observed rate of buggy intermediaries is (~0.0017%) and how high the observed
rate of malware propagation is.
I'm not
I don't know if this is a cultural issue or not, but neither of those
changes is an improvement, nor should they be any less offensive.
Convoluted and inefficient describes the hashing algorithm in the
least offensive way possible -- complex doesn't say anything.
There are a lot of complex
20 matches
Mail list logo
