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

Re: WebSocket2

From: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 17:21:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG-EYCiqq7KsYq6it9qsc-HLh3PZWtexX3LE=rSio6SLHeVPew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Cc: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> How something (registeration) which is just "Expert Review" can be
considered
> to be change of actual HTTP/2 specification ?

Well in the case that it will provide no resistance. The only possible
value of adding a Setting
I can see is to advertise what the headers currently advertise (is
WebSocket2 available, can we compress, other possible other things).

Keep in mind different paths on the authority can use different compression
methods.

The resistance I see is that it will have to be "Expert Reviewed" before
being included, and a part of that 16bit space would have to
be reserved for WebSocket2 extension settings. First, I doubt it would
happen in a reasonable time frame and second
I just do not see the necessity.  We have custom headers in HTTP/1.1 for a
long time and no one has had a problem with it.



On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
wrote:

> Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>: (Sat Oct  1 21:20:38 2016)
> <...>
> > 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.
> <...>
>
> I interpreter Settings to be extension point. It does not touch HTTP/2
> specification.
>
> Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540
>
> 5.5.  Extending HTTP/2
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-5.5
>
> |   This document doesn't mandate a specific method for negotiating the
> |   use of an extension but notes that a setting (Section 6.5.2) could be
> |   used for that purpose.  If both peers set a value that indicates
> |   willingness to use the extension, then the extension can be used.  If
> |   a setting is used for extension negotiation, the initial value MUST
> |   be defined in such a fashion that the extension is initially
> |   disabled.
>
> 11.3.  Settings Registry
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-11.3
>
> |   This document establishes a registry for HTTP/2 settings.  The
> |   "HTTP/2 Settings" registry manages a 16-bit space.  The "HTTP/2
> |   Settings" registry operates under the "Expert Review" policy
> |   [RFC5226] for values in the range from 0x0000 to 0xefff, with values
> |   between and 0xf000 and 0xffff being reserved for Experimental Use.
>
>
> How something (registeration) which is just "Expert Review" can be
> considered
> to be change of actual HTTP/2 specification ?
>
> / Kari Hurtta
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 1 October 2016 21:21:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 1 October 2016 21:21:50 UTC