W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)

From: Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:53:32 +0900
Message-ID: <CABihn6G-F=Bt+=3A41OQ90OHUnCc36OQB11io8vCw=_H8bUzng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "C.Brunhuber@iaea.org" <C.Brunhuber@iaea.org>
>
> > I don't want to require all intermediaries to understand WS over HTTP/2.
> If this is the requirement, then you'll need to retain END_SEGMENT.

What I really need is that an intermediary which don't understand WS over
HTTP/2 don't
do unnecessary "intelligent" things.
Specifically, I don't want an intermediary to drop a WS frame or to buffer
WS frames over
a message boundary without understanding WS over HTTP/2.

If you could state that an intermediary MUST NOT discard or buffer an
unknown or unsupported frames,
it would serve (without END_SEGMENT).
Sorry I didn't follow the "Extending HTTP/2" discussion, so please let me
know if the above statement is pointless.

I'm not convinced that this is right though.  I'd rather have an
> explicit acknowledgement that my protocol is understood by the
> entities that are participating in it.

That requires an additional statement on the HTTP/2 spec.
Though I will be happier if WS over HTTP/2 can work with intermediaries
that don't understand WS over HTTP/2,
WS over HTTP/2 can work with the "explicit acknowledgement" mechanism.

Thanks,



On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 19 June 2014 00:51, Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com> wrote:
> > I don't want to require all intermediaries to understand WS over HTTP/2.
>
> If this is the requirement, then you'll need to retain END_SEGMENT.
>
> I'm not convinced that this is right though.  I'd rather have an
> explicit acknowledgement that my protocol is understood by the
> entities that are participating in it.
>
> Imagine what would happen if an intermediary decided to cache the
> response to your websocket request...
>
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 01:53:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC