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

Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1

From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:20:50 +0100
Message-ID: <51263B52.5010403@cisco.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
James,

I had several side discussions at the Interim meeting.  We could get rid
of ALL but ONE option if we agree to eat any performance improvement on
the first exchange.  If we do that then we simply use Upgrade: and have
done with the whole mess.

Eliot

On 2/21/13 4:11 PM, James M Snell wrote:
>
> There are two too many options in my opinion but I can live with this
> for now.
>
> On Feb 21, 2013 1:13 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net
> <mailto:mnot@mnot.net>> wrote:
>
>     Based upon discussion both at the Interim and subsequently, this
>     is where I think we are for the upgrade/negotiation process, at
>     least in terms of the 1st implementation draft:
>
>     1. HTTPS URLs
>        - use NPN (or its replacement); uses OPAQUE TOKEN to negotiate
>        - NO magic
>        - SETTINGS first
>
>     2. HTTP URLs
>
>       a. existing connection / new connection without context
>           - Upgrade Dance; uses OPAQUE TOKEN to negotiate
>           - NO magic
>           - SETTINGS first
>
>       b. new connection with context (e.g., because you used DNS hint,
>     header hint, prior knowledge)
>          - NO upgrade dance
>          - Magic
>          - SETTINGS first
>
>     The decision as to whether to use 2(a) or 2(b) in a particular
>     situation is up to implementations, but of course we'll give
>     (non-normative) guidance.
>
>     Does this make sense to everyone?
>
>     Regards,
>
>
>     --
>     Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 15:21:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 February 2013 15:21:45 GMT