W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: WebSocket2

From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 21:47:30 +0300
To: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20161001184730.GA8356@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 02:20:38PM -0400, Van Catha wrote:
 
> The proxy problem circles around back to the implementation. Perhaps a
> header in the request could be included saying to not cache anything, if
> the proxy caches things well its the proxies fault.  Also if the proxy is
> not aware of WebSocket2 this should not matter, the proxies job is to
> forward everything as it came.  As long as the proxy would forward the
> websocket2-[version|compression] headers to the server and forward what the
> server replies with there should be no problems.  Again if the proxy is
> "smart" and decides to cache the response (which did not specify any
> headers related to caching) its the proxies fault.  To be more direct the
> response may be forced to include headers specifically instructing nothing
> should be cached.  Does this work?

Is there request header to request no caching? There is certainly a
response header to request no caching.

Or perhaps use a dedicated method? It would seem pretty obivous that
if you see a unknown method, you shouldn't assume very much about what
it is.

> I am thinking using SETTINGS frames would be too complex, as that would
> require baking WebSocket2 directly into HTTP/2, the way it is now,
> WebSocket2 should run over HTTP/2 with minimal resistance since we do not
> introduce new settings or HTTP/2 frame types.  HTTP/2 was designed from the
> very beginning to not support 2 way streaming like websocket provides
> currently for HTTP/1.1.  I think the resistance would be great if adding
> WebSocket2 requires adding to the actual HTTP/2 specification.

Unfortunately, HTTP/2 does not have strict scheme handling like I
proposed. With it, one could just have directly used the wss scheme
(or ws for oppsec) and be done with it.

> If origin server does not know about WebSocket2 and the request succeeds
> that is indeed a problem.  Perhaps the server can reply with the error
> header always like websocket2-error: okay; in the case when the WebSocket2
> negotation was a success. This way an origin server without WebSocket2 will
> reply with 200, and the client will see there is no websocket2-error: okay;
> header and promptly notify the client that WebSocket2 negotiation failed.

It seems to me that using https:// GET here is rather dangerous. Even with
extra custom headers.


-Ilari
Received on Saturday, 1 October 2016 18:48:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 1 October 2016 18:48:08 UTC