W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2017

Re: [hybi] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets-01.txt

From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 08:31:45 +0800
Message-ID: <CANatvzwu=D7b+KrmQgHW+qtqXkW29bcx8_hNMT-xfcaCxNbfFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Cc: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>, hybi <hybi@ietf.org>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

2017-11-11 18:45 GMT+08:00 Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>:
> Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>: (Sat Nov 11 09:46:58 2017)
> <...>
>> > We could design error code, fallback, etc. for this kind of cases if it
>> > turns out we really need to take care of. For the initial implementation,
>> > maybe we could just let browsers give up when a connection attempt fails on
>> > a connection with ENABLE_UPGRADE (or ENABLE_CONNECT_PROTOCOL) announced.
>> I agree.
>> While I agree that having a status code that indicates failure to
>> upgrade the connection "end-to-end" might be a nice idea, I would also
>> argue that the necessity is not specific to HTTP/2.
>> We could have had a connection-cannot-be-upgraded status code for
>> HTTP/1.1. But in reality, we do not have such a status code, and
>> nobody has argue for having that (as I know of).
> There is (sort of)
> 426 Upgrade Required
> normally, if Upgrade can not done, http request is processed without protocol
> change.  This status code allows refusing of processing.
> 426 Upgrade Required
> is defined on
> RFC 2817: Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2817
> Yes, that status code is for somewhat different purpose.

Thank you for pointing that out.

My view is that 426 is a status code that instructs a client to
upgrade the connection (or a stream).

I do not think that it would be the status code that we can use for
telling the client that the stream could not be upgraded even though
the client requested the upgrade.

>> Considering the fact, I would anticipate that we will be fine without
>> adding a new status code to indicate such failure.
>> --
>> Kazuho Oku
> / Kari Hurtta

Kazuho Oku
Received on Sunday, 12 November 2017 00:32:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 12 November 2017 00:32:16 UTC