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

Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:50:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWaHU4NGBZgjGoQHFUFceL56OyQ+XZ69F2dsaYy8UzhzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I took some different conclusions away:

Specifically, I believe that we discussed having magic always
regardless of how we got started, so that there was only one code
path.  That wasn't firm, but I distinctly remember the conversation
that lead to that conclusion.

We didn't conclude on whether we would always need upgrade, though it
was evident to me that avoiding upgrade was clearly desirable: see
https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/29

On 21 February 2013 01:11, Mark Nottingham <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 16:50:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:50:36 GMT