- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:38:21 +0100
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:14:03AM -0800, Roberto Peon wrote: > Are you proposing following normal Upgrade semantics (that would add an RT, > bleh). > The magic which we have now is intended to make noncompliant intermediaries > barf. We know that Upgrade doesn't work particularly well for this from WS > experimentation, and a successful Upgrade (as viewed from the server's > perspective) doesn't necessarily mean that you're free-and-clear to talk in > the next protocol. I agree on this last point, but this probably is where the magic can help if placed at the proper location. In WS, we refrained from sending anything along with the handshake. However there is nothing that prevents us from sending the upgrade and the magic in the same packet to validate that the channel really is open : > HEAD * HTTP/1.1 > Host: foo > Upgrade: HTTP/2.0 > Connection: Upgrade > > MAGIC-request (first frame etc...) < HTTP/1.1 101 Switching < Upgrade: HTTP/2.0 < Connection: Upgrade < < MAGIC-response And then it makes a lot of sense to have a MAGIC-request above that should cause an abort on most systems (as Mark has been experimenting with), because as long as intermediaries are 1.1-compliant, they will correctly forward 2.0 to the end point without breaking the connection. The ones broken will only be the non-compliant ones. Willy
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 13:38:52 UTC