Re: H2 vs responses which should not carry any payload

Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org> Fri, 23 October 2020 11:49 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 980083A0C20 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 04:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org
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 o34weP9Sc2Aj for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 04:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 537E93A0C11 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 04:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kVvVi-00016O-Iw for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 11:45:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 11:45:30 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kVvVi-00016O-Iw@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <bnc@google.com>) id 1kVvVf-00015l-N2 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 11:45:27 +0000
Received: from mail-ot1-x332.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::332]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <bnc@google.com>) id 1kVvVd-0007hV-UX for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 11:45:27 +0000
Received: by mail-ot1-x332.google.com with SMTP id m22so1022159ots.4 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 04:45:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HwqMXs/YUuWLlj6RgmhSBPGRLZP3xAtvo+9OQCsWLAA=; b=NzsUleERlkpH6Dv0/XACEItXgAi3XK0f9JwrWZMmcTosLmmi3d8z7b/Rv4DYu3exS+ 7LrKNakBNGZM8nnN5OhNARRQnNBHdxEmy3rNUjkt5G25efXZUWGiuHW5cM3dnhLezcQq c9rV17/lKwXX4zaYTDFP6Co/tSoas4zWS03rY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HwqMXs/YUuWLlj6RgmhSBPGRLZP3xAtvo+9OQCsWLAA=; b=cMltSWNpmWIowkbIRSSQ1sjjOnzQK23TZNH7MDLoeWhUUJVAbe23wXQ3c2RPamH5FB 0eNz0mE1ufc/BkaqFqmNKyeF73bzR3491kkFpqI+NdTKWJQ8p9JwA2oZDl/l6WFlSuqR 29FlSOpF3qXpL1TZ1bFyYN4n9LB+EnGCv1n31lY49GswWmEhe+qsVTIYMfY7ZC+o5tbk oweZRRC7a09Xuy3A934zSmxAyOkGRi2F9RQqdIG3SzG/TnbjWpCIkDFREU0i6YV/jOli DkrKcroK4j1Cw1PECv430lwK3hb60u5S89417ymHUiQZxBVEypWk9Q1QSwMcK/IXdvbS l7mA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533osnTpxwijhRSvnUcPYmAWrlUtqiJhvBuoDpES7oFYGcYfuRlK 8tKqec5eB1IfeinCc8Hi3n4+dwia2LGDa0ooHZB81AjmOmI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxxPSN9QnfaryZyBwX+33ucGRauMMji8HaGWuSLOzrhRQgEvIo8TANRI3ZFR/gVsnLedvxWNHbLyXZjop4PZIc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1082:: with SMTP id y2mr1115823oto.221.1603453514392; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 04:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201023045426.GB4941@1wt.eu>
In-Reply-To: <20201023045426.GB4941@1wt.eu>
From: Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 07:45:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CACMu3tpPRzCnkbuTvEO9Tn5LQp+T++v21mDXU8fbn4JQHSSmaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::332; envelope-from=bnc@google.com; helo=mail-ot1-x332.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1kVvVd-0007hV-UX 5074c5df833285a761a4b06f8a6dabec
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: H2 vs responses which should not carry any payload
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CACMu3tpPRzCnkbuTvEO9Tn5LQp+T++v21mDXU8fbn4JQHSSmaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38110
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Willy,

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 12:57 AM Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>
>
> And even then, do all implementations accept, say, a HEADERS frame with
> no ES flag in response to a HEAD request, followed by an empty DATA frame
> carrying the ES flag ? At the semantic level it's OK since there's no
> payload, but I can understand how some could find it annoying to wait
> for DATA frames when no payload is expected (it's our case as well as
> part of the possible fixes for this).
>
>

At some point during the GREASE experiments Chrome removed the
END_STREAM flag from every HEADERS frame, then sent a frame of
reserved type, then an empty DATA frame with END_STREAM, and I found
that not every server accepts this.  To my best knowledge WinHTTP
still fails to process such a request (ever without the reserved
frame) if the request method is GET.  My interpretation of RFC7540 is
that such a request is spec compliant, but in practice Chrome cannot
send them at this point.  (The GREASE experiment continues only on
requests with a request body.)

Bence