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

Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:43:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYgGD2XWRH0xXYJOR7zY16hf2w+d4XTVk8_rx+DV5iG3Ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I agree with the outcome of this thread (always requiring magic).

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:11 AM, 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
>

QQ over here. Is this assuming only unencrypted HTTP/2? I believe Patrick
was hoping to bootstrap serving http:// URLs via HTTP/2 over SSL, using the
external discovery mechanism (DNS most likely). If so, I'm unclear on
whether or not we need to describe behavior WRT TLS-NPNesque negotiation.
Perhaps we should fork the thread for this...


> 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 Wednesday, 27 February 2013 03:44:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2013 03:44:18 GMT