- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 21:37:38 +0000
- To: "Ilari Liusvaara" <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>, "Ryan Hamilton" <rch@google.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
in all this didcussion about CONNECT, I presume that references to server, are to be interpreted as proxy? Since CONNECT is for proxies only. Or is it being proposed this could be useful for end servers? Adrien ------ Original Message ------ From: "Ilari Liusvaara" <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org> Cc: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>; "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>; "Ryan Hamilton" <rch@google.com>; "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Sent: 2/09/2013 7:10:35 a.m. Subject: Re: CONNECT and HTTP/2.0 >On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:28:05PM -0700, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Martin Thomson >> <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> > On 31 August 2013 18:18, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> >>wrote: >> > > I suck at editorial stuff so I expect people to object to my >>wording, but >> > > here's some proposed text (I'd be happy to put together a pull >>request >> > too)? >> > > Does this clarify whatever you find muddy? >> > >> > This is exactly the sort of response I wanted to encourage. The >>only >> > problem I see with your proposed text is that it says nothing about >> > what forms the tunnel and its characteristics. Basically, I think >> > that a full edit for this needs to take a good hard look at 2817. >> > This is a good start, but there's a bit more required. >> > >> >> Yeah, I didn't really know how to spec that. Basically, the DATA >>frames >> form the bidirectional tunnel. I'm not quite sure what else to say >>here, >> but I have difficulty because my natural thought process matches what >>we >> did in SPDY, so I don't know how to discuss this in a way that would >>clear >> up any other possible tunnel characteristics. Do you have any >>proposed text >> here? > >Regarding :scheme, what about fixing it to 'tcp' (with possiblity of >some >other kind of CONNECT be specified later)? > >And as I said before (for the part after tunnel has established): > >Client <-- HTTP2 stream ---> Proxy <-- TCP connection --> Server > >1) If DATA frame is received from the client: > >- Send its payload to the server. > >2) If END_STREAM is received from the client: > >- Flush any buffered to to the server (including this DATA frame > payload if any). >- Send end-of-data to the server. > >3) If stream error is received from the client. > >- Send TCP reset to the server. > >4) If data is received from the server: > >- Send the data to client in DATA frame(s). > >5) If end-of-data is received from the server: > >- Flush any buffered data to the client as DATA frame(s). >- Send a frame with END_STREAM (possibly on the last DATA frame). > >6) If reset is received from the server: > >- Send stream error to client. > > >Basically: > >HTTP2 DATA <---> TCP data. >HTTP2 END_STREAM <--> TCP end-of-data. >HTTP2 stream error <--> TCP reset. > > >But this only works with TCP. If SCTP or something is to be supported, >things >get much more complex. > >-Ilari >
Received on Sunday, 1 September 2013 21:38:09 UTC