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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 30 April 2013 03:21 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 8184B21F9C25 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.082
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.082 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.517, 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 aStRPF6KXuw5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC8921F9C1C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UX17b-0004Mj-Hz for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:20:51 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:20:51 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UX17b-0004Mj-Hz@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UX17S-0004KZ-DJ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:20:42 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UX17R-0004Rl-KD for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 03:20:42 +0000
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E91A0509B6; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:20:17 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130423081209.GH8496@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:20:14 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F786D0A4-F4BD-4A85-8078-F6BBCABA32AC@mnot.net>
References: <B49447FF-CB94-43ED-9CA2-0698C64BB554@mnot.net> <20130420071042.GI26517@1wt.eu> <77849350-125C-4F36-8D78-0FF86DA0044E@mnot.net> <20130420071736.GK26517@1wt.eu> <BA1DBB8B-2E4D-49F5-AE98-F089A568BD4E@mnot.net> <20130423081209.GH8496@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.375, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UX17R-0004Rl-KD f8521f46653baa121aa43eed2229e13d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/F786D0A4-F4BD-4A85-8078-F6BBCABA32AC@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17708
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>

I'm going to mark this resoution for incorporation into -23.


On 23/04/2013, at 6:12 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>; wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> 
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 05:38:59PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Proposal - add to p1 6.7:
>> 
>> """
>> When occurring in a request, Upgrade's value indicate the protocol(s) the
>> client would like to upgrade to, in order of relative preference. When
>> occurring in a 101 (Switching Protocols) response, there will usually only be
>> one protocol indicated in Upgrade. When occurring in any other response,
>> Upgrade indicates the protocol(s) the server is capable of upgrading to, in
>> order of relative preference.
>> """
> 
> I'm OK in the principle, though I think this should be fused into existing
> text, probably that way :
> 
>   The "Upgrade" header field is intended to provide a simple mechanism
>   for transitioning from HTTP/1.1 to some other protocol on the same
>   connection.  A client MAY send a list of protocols in order of relative
>   preference in the Upgrade header field of a request to invite the server
>   to switch to one or more of those protocols before sending the final
>   response.  A server MUST send an Upgrade header field in 101 (Switching
>   Protocols) responses to indicate which protocol(s) are being switched
>   to, and MUST send it in 426 (Upgrade Required) responses to indicate
>   acceptable protocols in order of relative preference.  A server MAY
>   send an Upgrade header field in any other response to indicate that
>   they might be willing to upgrade to one of the specified protocols for
>   a future request, in order of relative preference.
> 
> Willy
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/