Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> Fri, 02 December 2016 01:17 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 123C5129A36 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:17:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, 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 WnoonSMxevMK for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:17:32 -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 CB70A12966F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:17:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cCcQG-00016Q-3M for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 01:13:56 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 01:13:56 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cCcQG-00016Q-3M@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <kazuhooku@gmail.com>) id 1cCcQ7-00015D-Hz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 01:13:47 +0000
Received: from mail-wj0-f172.google.com ([209.85.210.172]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <kazuhooku@gmail.com>) id 1cCcQ0-0002FW-Em for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 01:13:42 +0000
Received: by mail-wj0-f172.google.com with SMTP id v7so219340211wjy.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 17:13:19 -0800 (PST)
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=vM4hwpOA+t19tO6wCNzJtoo9GlkNHvJq+NEIcex/38M=; b=oM+kcR43m8VOoHOQFlt5iN5ijuBytkJQVlM/qB2S52Rn32vQpCIUT7WLUYU73BMicY CIWZvfZPMU3Zf+z/N+lTncWbRNehVa2QJl7Ov48SRfZRqwDzDzvPry4uBRh4wUxNlou+ oU363Jub8O7e/MyZGk+/KbKGvHfCiTgmzvtDGgrwUa3ZvDLs818BgViVuSCKDyWx1A0g BSgTowLZHfzmYyGS98srb5uu+qkueJ5vvZwQCTVl0OyAd+K27ZM+v0JdlkS3sjAPXWWb ZGBnW9K1TiNaOv3FnY+dx7s3mFsaphSPZ5OSe0rG8D/m6a8+2W/p/cr0FyTh0rD/cJ5i XUcg==
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=vM4hwpOA+t19tO6wCNzJtoo9GlkNHvJq+NEIcex/38M=; b=H8cEKskZiF4PWT0RiYbeWKufpO16L4w1dvaQfBjZRscnvZEdxgxMNHxAM2cZJhNw+t 8QJ79tbhyDwucf56lIFKRmr/EAFRuyOMoBJ/j1rlqrZGfzVoet/8B/dOX8NKtY6h6evN yuID2Gu6Muqbc+V/ZGEWJTg5ktV/hpE4gpim1comTfT0a+HwxtOMYytPyqjDpilQKSeP UTCCz+kqX9+Zj5SrCayu66aNY/sNWI2p+eGBqdqoVKPxezTdXxc1TjoamMi2ImJOJexn aFDUrlBRwNisq254ItaOwSNahp/XpobfTdZ0NH2Sh0Km1d1RTEjLbyEe9wN5/3KhjcUE HWwQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00bDDoc6WcR7EvZnpPeelSfcTWNtVDVr0uuJ5zHUOPpVQeHIsOO3hV+JOibwm/h2RkUAk6iyvbLewgF5A==
X-Received: by 10.194.172.100 with SMTP id bb4mr34801325wjc.53.1480641192953; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 17:13:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.32.1 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:13:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <037D2D57-7423-4375-9FEC-50B3106F42ED@mnot.net>
References: <CAOdDvNqk7W_oNWUismMb-ZuhvdboZNDQ0YV2BLsbka-FGC-7oA@mail.gmail.com> <39F32B28-7116-478A-B02A-E8310EA6E189@mnot.net> <CABkgnnVZeLQGES5Dige8u+ukSgqSfJNKiCuL=oK3gQnAb_3LNw@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzwoUYaC_YPTTF6fdwN5aOiwrttyH9Xj7xYVR1i1DZ27bA@mail.gmail.com> <037D2D57-7423-4375-9FEC-50B3106F42ED@mnot.net>
From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 10:13:12 +0900
Message-ID: <CANatvzx=mOQ3kE-vnvwNvD2w26+RNTueHgu7BhHLnJixn0vRcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c6b2a588dee0542a2a41b
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.210.172; envelope-from=kazuhooku@gmail.com; helo=mail-wj0-f172.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.167, 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cCcQ0-0002FW-Em 511ac4e818052853107761d279105e2a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CANatvzx=mOQ3kE-vnvwNvD2w26+RNTueHgu7BhHLnJixn0vRcw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33080
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>

2016-12-02 10:00 GMT+09:00 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>et>:

>
> > On 2 Dec. 2016, at 11:56 am, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2016-12-02 9:19 GMT+09:00 Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>om>:
> > On 2 December 2016 at 11:09, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> > > In particular, my recollection of the outcome of the discussion of WS
> in H2 was that a new SETTING or a new ALPN token could be used to indicate
> that a connection supports both H2 and WS. If there's a problem with doing
> so, that would be good to talk about as well. Especially considering QUIC.
> >
> > There seems to be some reluctance to exercise that option.  I don't
> > understand why; I've a bunch of candidate theories, but none of them
> > make a lot of sense.
> >
> >
> > My understanding is that the cons of using SETTINGS only is that it
> requires an additional roundtrip on connection establishment. I've heard
> people oppose to the use of ALPN since they want to use both H2 and WS (and
> possibly DNS?) on the same connection.
>
> The semantics of the ALPN token can be "this connection supports H2 *and*
> WS."
>
> It's true that taken to an extreme, this could lead to a combinatorial
> explosion.


Agreed. While I believe it would be a good idea to have some kind of
mechanism to restrict the use of an H2 connection, a client need to be
forbidden for making an anticipation that the connection can also handle
HTTP requests. We have 421 that can be used as a safe-guard.
(Yes, this is the discussion we had with ORIGIN frame).

If I remember discussions at the time correctly, it was felt that having
> some positive pressure on implementations to identify and implement common
> profiles of protocols to support was a good thing.
>
>
> > Personally, I think using both SETTINGS (or introducing a new frame) and
> ALPN solves the shortcomings (and the reluctance). We could consider ALPN
> as a method to specify the application protocol (e.g. HTTP or WS or DNS),
> and use SETTINGS for permitting additional protocols to be coalesced.
>
> That's another way to do it too, provided the latency hit isn't critical.
> Since you've already got the H2 connection open in the typical case for WS,
> I think that'd work well, but I could be unaware of some use case that
> requires WS on the first RT.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>


-- 
Kazuho Oku