From nobody Thu Feb 16 01:03:18 2017 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 C5B691299DC for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:03:15 -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 PmZ_HxSc39oE for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:03:14 -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 4C1A01299D1 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:03:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id v77so9826049wmv.0 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:03:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=HiYI7fROUA2gcKEMKisq+ONFUeNoseywmcvyPtBIQYI=; b=rHLdBvM7TxquZAusV71pETxPJPo9sQdaB4c04eb0Kuk/e74UYwVft3ACXwrPXCdTvi 60lOeSJ0d0OVmt5g0tGtKazZTQbHiT/ce/6TT99RV/Oi3vUOHp58a7pPo7yr3nj87Y6Y f4t00OZexinQVmw0Cw9259+X9sNKij12E1tCVv+aAoEMQzeW8BvBxdMFOvynFL8BVFda mPnugDpnu2yObwgElb6ZM6OypxrseuW7ron8cFpKuVZB87XdwlGkCPbq/0d1rRg4UAnH 8Rf1Bv73O/F/5GxmJfPACu6vv8Klc0dLio10q3vyBbvxkp7tWIGC5qLk3U2CbNUIWVfu jDLw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=HiYI7fROUA2gcKEMKisq+ONFUeNoseywmcvyPtBIQYI=; b=GiiiJYv8jkiMP6vyqnBEbrfeEEVmZodL7hrEN68dHaUlcYZSywTz3HCI24r27J+lNO H6rcUWSBNskDNk31BP1Z5Z4Rxcr353v6AivAhuO90iVbjgHDLQYUSI3DxzyyOnkQsLrN 3TkporrlPEmQIcr16xnk1d4XxjS8todZtlwV/h4n6j0WdAvvO925oFgb5TXDoBiI5EMm 3XQcpxiHuaEjXfEyc5N29m484EKhGOlmaSrN128DSHM5Wu8h8KSGFRpWWZgJKCCuW4ow +4T2QQ1Nv2vw+9LK7EhQypoBiM3SAVe5wDv54zABvsxKh4+36dSwQOejSSACA0tANmAR a3rg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39klXM0p9HUhV/Aeme89uH8TQuvX58MEP3sldcQwKnY8/lebgnKCkJeAmJRYBD7fuWL+vXnMthK+f5pUhgWK X-Received: by 10.28.191.79 with SMTP id p76mr11337360wmf.21.1487235792395; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:03:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.176.130 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 01:02:51 -0800 (PST) From: Takeshi Yoshino Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:02:51 +0900 Message-ID: To: "hybi@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0712721ac4610548a211a2 Archived-At: Subject: [hybi] permessage-deflate in Chromium/pywebsocket and zlib's limitation regarding window size X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:03:16 -0000 --94eb2c0712721ac4610548a211a2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sending heads up to those who implement or use the permessage-deflate extension as it might be useful. zlib (and therefore Chromium and pywebsocket) has been behaving as if window_bits parameter was set to 9 to compress data even when given the window_bits parameter set to 8. See https://github.com/madler/zlib/issues/171 for more details. Recently, zlib has been updated to return an error when told to use bits 8 by https://github.com/madler/zlib/commit/049578f0a1849f502834167e233f4c1d52ddcbcc Chromium hit this error when rolling the new zlib. We decided to explicitly tell zlib to use window_bits 9 when told to (e.g. by client_max_window_bits from a server) use 8 to keep the existing behavior. See http://crbug.com/691074 for more details. For the mean time, we'll just keep this behavior. Q: Any visible change made on Chromium's behavior in http://crbug.com/691074 ? A: No Q: Chromium has not been and is still not honoring client_max_window_bits correctly? A: Yes, but effectively no, fortunately ... Because of "Compression Factor Design Quirk" (see http://www.zlib.net/zlib_tech.html), Chromium has been using 250 byte back-reference which can be decompressed by an inflater with 256 byte long back reference. Thanks mark, ricea, yhirano for analysis at http://crbug.com/691074. --94eb2c0712721ac4610548a211a2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sending heads up to those who implement or use the pe= rmessage-deflate extension as it might be useful.

= zlib (and therefore Chromium and pywebsocket) has been behaving as if windo= w_bits parameter was set to 9 to compress data even when given the window_b= its parameter set to 8. See https://github.com/madler/zlib/issues/171 for more details.
<= /div>

Recently, zlib has been updated to return an error= when told to use bits 8 by https://github.com/madler/zlib/= commit/049578f0a1849f502834167e233f4c1d52ddcbcc

Chromium hit this error when rolling the new zlib. We decided to explicit= ly tell zlib to use window_bits 9 when told to (e.g. by client_max_window_b= its from a server) use 8 to keep the existing behavior. See http://crbug.com/691074 for more details. For the = mean time, we'll just keep this behavior.

Q: A= ny visible change made on Chromium's behavior in http://crbug.com/691074?
A: No

Q: Chromium has not been and is still not honoring client_max_wind= ow_bits correctly?
A: Yes, but effectively no, fortunately ... Be= cause of "Compression Factor Design Quirk" (see http://www.zlib.net/zlib_tech.html), Chro= mium has been using 250 byte back-reference which can be decompressed by an= inflater with 256 byte long back reference.


<= /div>
Thanks mark, ricea, yhirano for analysis at http://crbug.com/691074.
=C2=A0
--94eb2c0712721ac4610548a211a2-- From nobody Thu Feb 23 19:11:56 2017 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 893361294DB for ; 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 ; 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 ; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:11:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id v77so5014879wmv.0 for ; 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 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:11:23 +0900 Message-ID: To: jeffersoncarpenter2@gmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0d3f6edbc15005493e1646 Archived-At: Cc: "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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 03:11:46 -0000 --94eb2c0d3f6edbc15005493e1646 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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. --94eb2c0d3f6edbc15005493e1646 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What a received 1001 status cod= e 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 cli= ent 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 distingui= sh them.
=C2=A0
--94eb2c0d3f6edbc15005493e1646--