Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

I've made Gabriel's suggested edits and cleaned up the first part of
the session header stuff.  It does help.

https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/commit/d6eefeafc362cd22a639bd608f8601b04820dc7b

Marks comment regarding the fictitious nature of the session header is
fair, but I find it an convenient abstraction from an editorial
perspective.  Again, YMMV.


On 17 April 2013 10:02, Gabriel Montenegro
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Personally, I'm not thrilled with how the server session header is conflated
>> with a SETTINGS frame... if we're going to require that the server send a
>> SETTINGS frame first (which is fine), let's just come out and say that, rather
>> than making it a side effect of requiring a (largely fictional) server session
>> header.
>
> The spec already says that in section 3.8.4 that a SETTINGS frame MUST be the first frame sent by either party in a new session.
>
> So that part is fine. If we wish to say that a server has no session header, that would be fine.
>
> As for " As proposed by Gabriel, SETTINGS (or equivalent) would/could be carried in the headers in the UPGRADE request."
>
> For the record, I did not say that in the Upgrade scenario the client session header is sent in HTTP/1.1 along with the Upgrade request. My understanding is that the Upgrade request goes without the client session header. As we have discussed in Orlando, we could add some HTTP/1.1 headers to address the known state by conveying *some* of the settings (only those absolutely necessary to achieve known initial state). But that's a separate proposal/discussion from this thread.
>
> At any rate, the server sends back the 101, and begins its HTTP/2.0 traffic by  sending its SETTINGS frame and its response frames, and the client upon receiving the 101, and only then, begins sending HTTP/2.0 traffic starting with its client session header (which includes the magic sequence and the client SETTINGS frame).
>
>