Re: New Version Notification for draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets-01.txt

I think the consensus is to move the websockets parameters (sub-protocol,
etc..) in h2 HEADERS. -02 will reflect that.

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thank you for working on the draft. I am happy to see WebSockets
> coming to HTTP/2, and I like that the proposal tries to make changes
> caused by the transition minimal.
>
> The biggest issue I wonder if we can continue using HTTP/1 headers for
> WebSocket parameter negotiation (e.g., Sec-WebSocket-Version,
> Sec-WebSocket-Protocol), instead of sending them in DATA frames.
>
> The reason I ask this is because unless we keep them as headers, it
> would become impossible to implement a ws-on-h2 to ws-on-h1 proxy
> without dealing with the details of the WebSocket protocol.
>
> In HTTP/1, it has been possible to implement a HTTP proxy that
> supports WebSockets, without the knowledge of sub-protocol
> negotiation. This is because all the parameters were negotiated
> through the use of the HTTP headers, and a proxy could simply forward
> them as-is. All the thing that a proxy has been required to do is to
> look at the Upgrade header and the status code, and start running a
> bi-directional tunnel once the upstream server sends a 101 response.
>
> With the -01 proposal, the same feature is retained only when a proxy
> forwards from ws-on-h2 client to a ws-on-h2 server. In the case of
> ws-on-h2 client connecting to ws-on-h1 server (or ws-on-h1 client
> connecting to ws-on-h2 server), the proxy needs to convert
> WebSocket-specific values sent in DATA frame to a HTTP header (or
> vice-versa).
>
> I wonder if this is a necessary complication. If not, I would prefer
> to continue sending all the headers necessary for WebSocket
> negotiation in HTTP/2 as well.
>
> 2017-10-27 2:32 GMT+09:00 Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>:
> > This is an updated based on the direction discussed.. I'm kind of on the
> > fence about whether its better. Its nice there is no h1 in there.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> > Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:30 PM
> > Subject: New Version Notification for
> > draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets-01.txt
> > To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > A new version of I-D, draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets-01.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Patrick McManus and posted to the
> > IETF repository.
> >
> > Name:           draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets
> > Revision:       01
> > Title:          Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/2
> > Document date:  2017-10-26
> > Group:          Individual Submission
> > Pages:          9
> > URL:
> > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcmanus-httpbis-
> h2-websockets-01.txt
> > Status:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets/
> > Htmlized:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets-01
> > Htmlized:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mcmanus-
> httpbis-h2-websockets-01
> > Diff:
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets-01
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    This document defines a mechanism for running the WebSocket Protocol
> >    [RFC6455] over a single stream of an HTTP/2 connection.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > The IETF Secretariat
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kazuho Oku
>