Re: Hello from Mozilla

Upgrade is hop-by-hop, so it's pretty limiting.

Ian, an example:

An intermediary (transparent, intercepting or whatever) can and often
does add arbitrary headers; e.g., x-forwarded-for. This is completely
legal in HTTP, where headers that are not understood are ignored, and
additionally several headers have provisions to change values in
headers as well (e.g., transfer-encoding, te, via, connection).

They're also allowed to change the formatting of the message; e.g., re-
wrap headers, normalise whitespace.

Specifying a bit-for bit handshake is incredibly fragile.

Cheers,

On 15/07/2009, at 3:26 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:

> 2009/7/15 Ian Hickson <ian_at_hixie.ch>:
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>>
>>> WebSocket made the handshake bytes look like something Squid
>>> thinks it
>>> understands. That is the whole point of the argument. You are
>>> sending an
>>> HTTP-looking message that is not really an HTTP message. I think
>>> this is
>>> a recipe for trouble, even though it might solve some problem in
>>> some
>>> environments.
>>
>> Could you elaborate on what bytes Squid thinks it should change in
>> the
>> WebSocket handshake?
>
> Anything which it can under the HTTP/1.x RFCs.
>
> Maybe I missed it - why exactly again aren't you just talking HTTP on
> the HTTP port(s), and doing a standard HTTP upgrade?
>
>
> Adrian

--
Mark Nottingham       mnot_at_yahoo-inc.com