- From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:14:53 +0200 (EET)
- To: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
- CC: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, hybi <hybi@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
> Therefore the explicit tunneling mechanism is > necessary to signal to proxies/frameworks that a full-duplex byte-stream is > being tunneled as a http/2 stream. >> Request: >> :method: GET >> :scheme: https >> :authority: server.example.com >> :path: /chat >> :upgrade: websocket 8.1.2.1. Pseudo-Header Fields https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-8.1.2.1 states -------- Pseudo-header fields are only valid in the context in which they are defined. Pseudo-header fields defined for requests MUST NOT appear in responses; pseudo-header fields defined for responses MUST NOT appear in requests. Pseudo-header fields MUST NOT appear in trailers. Endpoints MUST treat a request or response that contains undefined or invalid pseudo-header fields as malformed (Section 8.1.2.6). -------- Then that ":upgrade" works as explicit tunneling mechanism, IF you can trust that response is treated as mailformed (stream error of type PROTOCOL_ERROR) when proxies/frameworks does not subscribe that tunneling mechanism. Can you trust that? / Kari Hurtta
Received on Friday, 10 November 2017 06:15:20 UTC