From piotrku@microsoft.com Fri Dec 9 16:03:31 2011 Return-Path: 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 0B0EA21F84D7 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:03:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 GiI9YrqseWzS for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:03:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from VA3EHSOBE009.bigfish.com (va3ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BDF721F84D6 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:03:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail47-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.251) by VA3EHSOBE009.bigfish.com (10.7.40.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:03:14 +0000 Received: from mail47-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail47-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226434400B8; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:03:29 +0000 (UTC) X-SpamScore: -9 X-BigFish: VS-9(zzc85fh1418M4015Lzz1202hzz8275bh8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h61h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI Received-SPF: pass (mail47-va3: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=piotrku@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ; Received: from mail47-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail47-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1323475408765482_8532; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:03:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from VA3EHSMHS033.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.241]) by mail47-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3A22C007E; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:03:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by VA3EHSMHS033.bigfish.com (10.7.99.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:03:09 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MBXC202.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.192]) by TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.174]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.005; Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:03:23 -0800 From: Piotr Kulaga To: Tobias Oberstein Thread-Topic: Autobahn feedback Thread-Index: Acy2zifL1mpG2tH+RTiZAUMr3s2+Gg== Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:03:23 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.22] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ED13A76FCE9E96498B049688227AEA2945778675TK5EX14MBXC202r_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" Subject: [hybi] Autobahn feedback X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:03:31 -0000 --_000_ED13A76FCE9E96498B049688227AEA2945778675TK5EX14MBXC202r_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tobias, I went through the Autobahn client tests and I have some feedback regarding= some of them: * 2.10: The test requires to reply to every ping which is against t= he spec. It should check that the client replied just to the last one. * 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 5.15: Th= e tests may return non-strict result because of a race. All of them are con= structed in a similar way: send a valid message followed by an invalid fram= e. The expectation is to receive a valid message, but it races with an RST = sent due to terminating the connection because of the invalid frame. * 7.9.10, 7.9.11: Error codes 5000+ are not explicitly forbidden, s= o I think that they should be allowed (at least on the protocol layer, the = browser behavior is different). Thanks, Piotr --_000_ED13A76FCE9E96498B049688227AEA2945778675TK5EX14MBXC202r_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Tobias,

 =

I went through the Autob= ahn client tests and I have some feedback regarding some of them:

·         2.10: The test r= equires to reply to every ping which is against the spec. It should check t= hat the client replied just to the last one.

·         3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4= .1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 5.15: The tests may return non-str= ict result because of a race. All of them are constructed in a similar way:= send a valid message followed by an invalid frame. The expectation is to receive a valid message, but it ra= ces with an RST sent due to terminating the connection because of the inval= id frame.

·         7.9.10, 7.9.11: = Error codes 5000+ are not explicitly forbidden, so I think that they sh= ould be allowed (at least on the protocol layer, the browser behavior is di= fferent).

  <= /span>

Thanks,

Piotr<= /p>

--_000_ED13A76FCE9E96498B049688227AEA2945778675TK5EX14MBXC202r_-- From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Sun Dec 11 14:19:02 2011 Return-Path: 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 DD64521F84B9; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:19:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.15 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 L3IOJqpLn+XL; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:19:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7686C21F84AC; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:19:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 6072772E00C; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:18:10 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20111211221813.6072772E00C@rfc-editor.org> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:18:10 -0800 (PST) Cc: hybi@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [hybi] RFC 6455 on The WebSocket Protocol X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:19:03 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6455 Title: The WebSocket Protocol Author: I. Fette, A. Melnikov Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: December 2011 Mailbox: ifette+ietf@google.com, Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com Pages: 71 Characters: 162067 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-17.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6455.txt The WebSocket Protocol enables two-way communication between a client running untrusted code in a controlled environment to a remote host that has opted-in to communications from that code. The security model used for this is the origin-based security model commonly used by web browsers. The protocol consists of an opening handshake followed by basic message framing, layered over TCP. The goal of this technology is to provide a mechanism for browser-based applications that need two-way communication with servers that does not rely on opening multiple HTTP connections (e.g., using XMLHttpRequest or