Re: WebSocket2

Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com> Sat, 01 October 2016 21:25 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 357F012B025 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 14:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.616
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 GdLbj6I2Rb5M for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 14:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
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 8CCBC12B0FA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 14:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bqRjC-00016I-UZ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 21:21:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 21:21:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bqRjC-00016I-UZ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <vans554@gmail.com>) id 1bqRj9-00015W-Tn for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 21:21:47 +0000
Received: from mail-qk0-f181.google.com ([209.85.220.181]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <vans554@gmail.com>) id 1bqRj7-0002jf-SW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 21:21:47 +0000
Received: by mail-qk0-f181.google.com with SMTP id z190so135833007qkc.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 14:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Xib1uixDGv7yq749rs9LOlvQ41UVVnD6vchFasi6+1A=; b=P8VT0WFaBrI/sREzgCHzjHapbJoSARH39Z9GVUMtqQsveG9LLtMC/jcSyJGbe0yM1f Zishr4CtgN5D5BthfTb1cXptPAkOKjqSmzNw3kg7fs+vIsfuB6jj48o9Oq36SyaS93pC xmfNXYNs3PqIi+aB7a6E8xTacYZ7SbwfecG8Bb76pOFV6nJ58lqF/ch7klm6YFBMGka9 3cCKeobo6AnsJ/4TZ5Oc4ORdzTOqoUYDFIZ1cEEJfUXTxF/RLFWVDYN3OU5s7cWROJfR RgHgrNUZ8FVYpWkS/1fJBuzF5cQPK6D+MQIsgioLKWu2UsoQe7TQnC2A8GtDtCOZgtRG Eahg==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Xib1uixDGv7yq749rs9LOlvQ41UVVnD6vchFasi6+1A=; b=AY4cjznhMixxgGXWV7d4fT6Ryq4rP93+eKfaiTqwP/LHHFv+lhzpKmur+3tdkde5oD xP8YiaeTedE/BzfL2S7ysw+xhokMtuSgDUecoxZuyvF9Hj6OBk0fkAmDjIMf1/aDCUvg N78pwBkrKzG50IDZzR2JOPxbuCTIO71HFPJxrTBuP/OLG3fbQneuMA7udTBgEknELamR BHzg7ljkc39pbC7RvEOT1LTFje8yrc6rcPNF5ecIaZjEHd6MgkgqZDLOE39BjAt90+Ge WbRHqt1GAZr1zwLhrKzRmBb/3hpVEvCd8RDO8qCtYo1IeU7Cw+o0RPsFFb6Er15sVip+ ITQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rl4mRIAy8HUBjqbswN4s8NrjNNANY1iNttnpJ/DrJW9CvlVFjcYKIcZ+K4tgaPeqrxA/wtThymz3NB5Mg==
X-Received: by 10.55.145.129 with SMTP id t123mr8082483qkd.130.1475356879988; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 14:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.55.214.220 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 14:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201610011936.u91JaZlG008986@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
References: <CAG-EYCjx5=tExsjOJ+_-5p95Vp=Wfaz8JihDAAykDQpL64T4TA@mail.gmail.com> <20161001051700.245FA10F65@welho-filter1.welho.com> <CAG-EYCiXDYjmZ4r_8q31-UKQBG5=U53xOh1vef3-TJCVuytmdw@mail.gmail.com> <201610011936.u91JaZlG008986@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
From: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 17:21:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG-EYCiqq7KsYq6it9qsc-HLh3PZWtexX3LE=rSio6SLHeVPew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Cc: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c081feebfad24053dd44a93
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.181; envelope-from=vans554@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f181.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.869, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bqRj7-0002jf-SW 6373a5365d0ff8475565614d90b92c82
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WebSocket2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAG-EYCiqq7KsYq6it9qsc-HLh3PZWtexX3LE=rSio6SLHeVPew@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32441
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>

> How something (registeration) which is just "Expert Review" can be
considered
> to be change of actual HTTP/2 specification ?

Well in the case that it will provide no resistance. The only possible
value of adding a Setting
I can see is to advertise what the headers currently advertise (is
WebSocket2 available, can we compress, other possible other things).

Keep in mind different paths on the authority can use different compression
methods.

The resistance I see is that it will have to be "Expert Reviewed" before
being included, and a part of that 16bit space would have to
be reserved for WebSocket2 extension settings. First, I doubt it would
happen in a reasonable time frame and second
I just do not see the necessity.  We have custom headers in HTTP/1.1 for a
long time and no one has had a problem with it.



On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
wrote:

> Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>om>: (Sat Oct  1 21:20:38 2016)
> <...>
> > require baking WebSocket2 directly into HTTP/2, the way it is now,
> > WebSocket2 should run over HTTP/2 with minimal resistance since we do not
> > introduce new settings or HTTP/2 frame types.  HTTP/2 was designed from
> the
> > very beginning to not support 2 way streaming like websocket provides
> > currently for HTTP/1.1.  I think the resistance would be great if adding
> > WebSocket2 requires adding to the actual HTTP/2 specification.
> <...>
>
> I interpreter Settings to be extension point. It does not touch HTTP/2
> specification.
>
> Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540
>
> 5.5.  Extending HTTP/2
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-5.5
>
> |   This document doesn't mandate a specific method for negotiating the
> |   use of an extension but notes that a setting (Section 6.5.2) could be
> |   used for that purpose.  If both peers set a value that indicates
> |   willingness to use the extension, then the extension can be used.  If
> |   a setting is used for extension negotiation, the initial value MUST
> |   be defined in such a fashion that the extension is initially
> |   disabled.
>
> 11.3.  Settings Registry
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-11.3
>
> |   This document establishes a registry for HTTP/2 settings.  The
> |   "HTTP/2 Settings" registry manages a 16-bit space.  The "HTTP/2
> |   Settings" registry operates under the "Expert Review" policy
> |   [RFC5226] for values in the range from 0x0000 to 0xefff, with values
> |   between and 0xf000 and 0xffff being reserved for Experimental Use.
>
>
> How something (registeration) which is just "Expert Review" can be
> considered
> to be change of actual HTTP/2 specification ?
>
> / Kari Hurtta
>
>
>