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

Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:51:13 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7E227ED0-8E6D-4F6B-A760-FB80A520D6A1@mnot.net>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>

On 22/02/2013, at 3:50 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Works for me; I'm more interested in just getting something concrete written down.

Anyone have a problem with that?

One thing we need to discuss is how servers should handle it when the magic isn't sent, or isn't sent correctly; hard close?

Also, we haven't concluded on server->client magic. Do we have a real need for it?

> 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

My sense is that requiring it is going to be a non-starter. That's why I proposed three distinct paths below.


> 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/

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 04:51:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:10 UTC