W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: HTTP/2.0 Magic

From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 12:11:09 +0900
Message-ID: <510B324D.6040904@cisco.com>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
CC: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
The alternative is to append something for version info.

On 2/1/13 12:09 PM, Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
>  
>  
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com <mailto:lear@cisco.com>>
> To: "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com <mailto:grmocg@gmail.com>>
> Cc: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com
> <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>>; "HTTP Working Group"
> <ietf-http-wg@w3.org <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>>
> Sent: 1/02/2013 4:04:49 p.m.
> Subject: Re: HTTP/2.0 Magic
>> Separately we will also need a version identifier.  This field can
>> ALSO server as a version identifier.  We just rev/change the magic on
>> a new version.
> I wouldn't do that.
>  
> network sniffers will get coded to the magic number.  They'd need to
> be recoded to even recognise the new version with a different magic
> number as being still HTTP
>  
> Adrien
>  
>>
>>
>> On 2/1/13 11:35 AM, Roberto Peon wrote:
>>> How about: d3 d0 c4 d9? (as an hommage).
>>>
>>> Honestly, though, anything which spells out something easy to
>>> remember in 7-bit ascii when the high-bits are all xor'd would be
>>> nice :)
>>>
>>> -=R
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Martin Thomson
>>> <martin.thomson@gmail.com <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     The conclusion that we reached in the interim was that no matter how
>>>     HTTP/2.0 was started, there would be some magic that started the
>>>     session.
>>>
>>>     The requirements for that magic is that it is designed to cause a
>>>     reasonable proportion of HTTP/1.1 implementations to fail,
>>>     preferably
>>>     to close the connection.
>>>
>>>     This magic also provides a high degree of confidence that the
>>>     protocol
>>>     you are talking is actually HTTP/2.0 and not something else.
>>>
>>>     As far as I am aware, the actual sequence does not matter much,
>>>     though
>>>     having the first bit set ensures that this isn't valid HTTP/1.1.
>>>
>>>     I generated a random number.  In this case, a 32-bit value.
>>>      Happily,
>>>     the high bit is set:
>>>
>>>       e1c54784
>>>
>>>     As we discussed, this would be sent at the start of every
>>>     session and
>>>     be followed immediately by a SETTINGS frame.  Both client and server
>>>     send this sequence.
>>>
>>>     The concern here is that some implementations will swallow this and
>>>     proceed anyway.  Those implementations wont fail as a result of
>>>     seeing
>>>     this.  It may be the case that for those implementations no
>>>     amount of
>>>     magic is sufficient as the tests that lead to websockets masking
>>>     revealed.
>>>
>>>
>>
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 03:11:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 February 2013 03:11:40 GMT