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

Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1

From: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:19:28 +0100
Message-ID: <51277E70.7090307@zinks.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
When the server respond without upgrading then I would expect that no 
MAGIC should be sent.

On 22.02.2013 14:38, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 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.
>
> Willy
>
>
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 14:19:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 14:19:52 GMT