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 14:38:21 +0100
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130222133821.GB14696@1wt.eu>
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:14:03AM -0800, Roberto Peon wrote:
> Are you proposing following normal Upgrade semantics (that would add an RT,
> bleh).
> The magic which we have now is intended to make noncompliant intermediaries
> barf. We know that Upgrade doesn't work particularly well for this from WS
> experimentation, and a successful Upgrade (as viewed from the server's
> perspective) doesn't necessarily mean that you're free-and-clear to talk in
> the next protocol.

I agree on this last point, but this probably is where the magic can help if
placed at the proper location. In WS, we refrained from sending anything along
with the handshake. However there is nothing that prevents us from sending the
upgrade and the magic in the same packet to validate that the channel really
is open :

 > HEAD * HTTP/1.1
 > Host: foo
 > Upgrade: HTTP/2.0
 > Connection: Upgrade
 > MAGIC-request
 (first frame etc...)

 < HTTP/1.1 101 Switching
 < Upgrade: HTTP/2.0
 < Connection: Upgrade
 < MAGIC-response

And then it makes a lot of sense to have a MAGIC-request above that
should cause an abort on most systems (as Mark has been experimenting
with), because as long as intermediaries are 1.1-compliant, they will
correctly forward 2.0 to the end point without breaking the connection.
The ones broken will only be the non-compliant ones.

Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 13:38:52 UTC

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