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

Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:02:48 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130222070248.GD13080@1wt.eu>
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:51:13PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> 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?

I agree with Martin here that we should avoid different code paths as
much as possible.

> 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?

In my opinion it will simply be an invalid protocol talked over the
wire if it does not match what is expected. We must be a bit stricter
with protocol elements than what we used to do since HTTP/0.9.

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

Depends whether an unexpected server response might be parsed as a valid
response or not. We could start with and remove it later if unneeded.

Willy
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 07:03:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 07:03:20 GMT