Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Sat, 20 April 2013 07:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FFD21F9003 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XqglC9QTnWhm for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A19521F9021 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 00:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UTRx6-0007o6-98 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:11:16 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:11:16 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UTRx6-0007o6-98@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UTRx2-0007n9-DU for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:11:12 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UTRwu-0006NY-L0 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 07:11:12 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r3K7AgMF028629; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:10:42 +0200
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:10:42 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130420071042.GI26517@1wt.eu>
References: <B49447FF-CB94-43ED-9CA2-0698C64BB554@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B49447FF-CB94-43ED-9CA2-0698C64BB554@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.683, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.702, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UTRwu-0006NY-L0 bc0cb34bdf1871166d8f35bf43e37760
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130420071042.GI26517@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17392
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 02:07:57PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> p1 section 6.7 defines the Upgrade header, but no where does it say anything
> about relative preference.
> 
> Should we define (or at least allow) for the ordering to be semantically
> significant? It seems to me that if we end up using this, and there are a few
> different variants of HTTP/2 (e.g., "normal" vs "mobile"), it'd be nice to
> rely on ordering here.

Indeed it could be quite useful! RFC2817 does not suggest anything concerning
multiple values in the Upgrade header field for the request message, it only
suggests that the response describes the protocol stack (eg: TLS/1.0, HTTP/1.1).

So I'm wondering if it would not be a abit awkward to have a different
definition of this header field depending on the direction. Some more thinking
is needed on this I suppose.

Willy