- From: Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:36:11 +0900
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABihn6FUpoLjSe6-mh8mx-0CYNROgd6L=bRGW3MKWrqa3diJiA@mail.gmail.com>
> > (2) "all intermediaries" does not seem possible. To achieve it an > intermediary receiving a SETTINGS negotiating WS extansion must > already know the destination servers and upstream contact it will have > for all possible WS requests/connections sent by that client. IMHO (2) should be phrased along the lines of intermediaries > advertising WS extension to HTTP/2 MUST be capable of fallback to WS > over TCP (or other such as HTTP/1.1) if any of their upstream peers do > not negotiate WS extension as well. You are right. What I wanted to say was that WS-unaware intermediaries should be rejected. On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 25/11/2014 9:16 p.m., Yutaka Hirano wrote: > > Hmm, OK, I agree that "magic bad proxy" is a magic word. > > > > Let me confirm: 1 We use http2 DATA frames to convey WebSocket > > data. 1.1 Each http2 frame payload consists of one-byte WebSocket > > header and WebSocket data payload. 2. All intermediaries MUST > > understand WebSocket (i.e. If there is an intermediary that doesn't > > understand WebSocket, the opening handshake must fail). > > > > Do you agree with these? > > > > (2) "all intermediaries" does not seem possible. To achieve it an > intermediary receiving a SETTINGS negotiating WS extansion must > already know the destination servers and upstream contact it will have > for all possible WS requests/connections sent by that client. > > > IMHO (2) should be phrased along the lines of intermediaries > advertising WS extension to HTTP/2 MUST be capable of fallback to WS > over TCP (or other such as HTTP/1.1) if any of their upstream peers do > not negotiate WS extension as well. > > That way if anyone offers WS support they are guaranteeing that the WS > connections sent to them will be possible one way or another. It is > not the end clients business how they achieve WS, so long as they do. > > Amos > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdFxtAAoJELJo5wb/XPRjjSEIALUD+ZERvbKsKqsN3XZqZ+Fn > ogFDANbTeKcMjAH/0FNKLDF2+SlSeGFIvMT+cVtUBg7Cr8JSglPYpFea/ylP/K1n > rKzDoN+nrM8zvLTf10+sjirlojkH2gtKc+QDKKDJnYAFyQhw75u2DiN5b31YmqZ+ > ZU9pQB8eyMF9vBVTtsle7wP4gujub8kXIDgDZtgGUnxYiAi1pAJlKIzMI3lfrogd > +QMLt5nxZZe8EMUcLiUe6NC8xfORGQkHPq4rvDnz6Zz+62k1wkzjzzsoJfbJDspr > 9J0cPleAzwTjryz80HUSca2o4amSTGdxeux+hB79szD0BxA6fRBRxDrEjf8hRcU= > =0xoT > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 01:36:40 UTC