Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 26 February 2016 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA651B3015 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:48:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.007
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WofB4P97Czv9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:48:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B8541B3018 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:47:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aZPEE-0002i4-1T for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:43:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:43:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aZPEE-0002i4-1T@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1aZPE6-0002hB-TW for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:43:02 +0000
Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com ([209.85.213.170]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1aZPE4-0003qP-6A for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 20:43:02 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id xg9so42282459igb.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:42:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=0MLKWL2HUOXSqLMFkqEig+vd+/E7ApHBAeURbQTw+R8=; b=tbPHw29tmQZQ1Doume4MDgFRJE7lXTRMHWu+J2u/7P/3FKYqxSFfdStcQgBSrdfsvw A6P0tmKg3jLQhUm1lfE9VKMs9HwGXjhqMupsD0I5qAJA+y3f/0R/6XGiqQd/MrqZiCmL KiRZBDOboNA7jfVCOm8yKyLKDkrYzf62+EH95B37kk9tHH8EBXuR4w+Tsn8gxduDpEW2 UaW9DRQOzrBjw26VvqbI9XmarzGMSbyTWwc6Xp2gLjk9A01y454/h85MF7SulZSwSikg CgAknxm++D0em72X9R6DvwMNIi1aw7eZ2JKTqwOx+hey+9Q9ggxl/jDboAnzvU2NaIIL /jtA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=0MLKWL2HUOXSqLMFkqEig+vd+/E7ApHBAeURbQTw+R8=; b=nCt2c5/HbfbjS2TbGP6GraG95a0zsWQ0IyQE6tKQDVvwRQFZjg5CIFpgmNfQZPRoIf JlCSxHICYeSov/5Lfurt36z4LyDx2E/elaLxivIUKVv9Fp8R66seN7fkVZ4HfEx0WMSj 4ceL2z8a3g+O8pBKdi0byQOjooz1t3e1rAB15QB7NncTsZSbQx2ILjIPRmvW/aDZEhoq XB6SsQddQBcbYyLCQWING+i6PbDvMRkT96z4HKrzA4QGwBxd0IknGcPhbSViXYns/V8i LyPod7LMIDZ/5+4xtHFmtOCjkuUzkaCsaBjqdp6SkvvqUcPY3nm28dpofzWPsaTx7rDe 44uA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIXK5xXGDnn62z6ZbXB1ndh5nzLLpYtjOsaFruwg1I93RGlu310T/pxsoUM7FgfyEud9+d/M3bLqmZGgw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.28.105 with SMTP id a9mr4901073igh.94.1456519353782; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:42:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.53.79 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:42:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.36.53.79 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:42:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201602260718.u1Q7IFiQ011325@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
References: <20160209074851.32332.24065.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20160209182822.C37A959F@welho-filter2.welho.com> <B7164F24-DDA1-4753-8A8B-04809B1965FF@mnot.net> <CABkgnnVfZu5e1fOAOAgaxPR=mRS+xv+oDFN1gHRUFamEk_=VtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR03MB1374F3513049DBCB19D36BF287D70@CY1PR03MB1374.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <56CEFF3F.8000602@gmx.de> <201602260718.u1Q7IFiQ011325@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 07:42:33 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVC9mJxKS9DM42UOiUJ9CfeeVgLJikoybwR5bEXsUZBmA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0158b346b0dce6052cb256e3"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.213.170; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f170.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.834, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aZPE4-0003qP-6A c6000ea73aab955066578d41594bed3c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-alt-svc-12.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnVC9mJxKS9DM42UOiUJ9CfeeVgLJikoybwR5bEXsUZBmA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31107
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>

We should be clear, 3.4 (prior knowledge) is exceptional and doesn't apply
here.  That same prior knowledge could be used to find an alternative.
On Feb 26, 2016 6:18 PM, "Kari Hurtta" <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote:

> Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>: (Thu Feb 25 15:18:55 2016)
> > On 2016-02-10 22:31, Mike Bishop wrote:
> >> I agree.  For example, if the proposal of using a .well-known URI to
> delegate to an Alt-Svc gets traction and becomes an RFC, it could just
> update Alt-Svc to define that as having assurance as well.
> >>
> >> Note that h2c on the same port doesn't need Alt-Svc, since the Upgrade:
> header from the server is already defined.  So what we're really talking
> about is h2c *on a different port*.  Honestly, I think if we put it on a
> different port and publish an Alt-Svc pointing to it, we might as well go
> direct (i.e. don't Upgrade from HTTP/1.1 on the new connection), which
> would need a new token anyway.
> >
> > "new token" in what sense?
> >
> > Best regards, Julian
>
>
> Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)
> RFC 7540
>
> 3.1.  HTTP/2 Version Identification
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-3.1
>
> |   o  The string "h2c" identifies the protocol where HTTP/2 is run over
> |      cleartext TCP.  This identifier is used in the HTTP/1.1 Upgrade
> |      header field and in any place where HTTP/2 over TCP is identified.
> |
> |      The "h2c" string is reserved from the ALPN identifier space but
> |      describes a protocol that does not use TLS.
>
>
> Is "h2c" reserved for clear text HTTP/2 with Upgrade: -header negotiation ?
>
> If there is "h2c" on Alt-Svc it can mean either clear text HTTP/2
> with Upgrade -negation or clear text HTTP/2 with Prior Knowledge
> but it can not mean both.
>
> 3.4.  Starting HTTP/2 with Prior Knowledge
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-3.4
>
> |   A client can learn that a particular server supports HTTP/2 by other
> |   means.  For example, [ALT-SVC] describes a mechanism for advertising
> |   this capability.
>
> So it is unclear that is Upgrade: -supposed to be run when
> Alt-Svc -header gives "h2c". But clear text HTTP/2 usage with
> Alt-Svc -header needs own RFC anyway (and nobody supports clear
> text HTTP/2).
>
> / Kari Hurtta
>
>
>