Re: Header addition with HTTP 2.0

Vimala Tadepalli <vimla.c@gmail.com> Tue, 31 March 2015 20:18 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 072931A86E4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.711 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, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 Z0Aa4xTjxRFz for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:18:21 -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 742F61A86E8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Yd2ZK-0005iv-3L for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:15:26 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:15:26 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Yd2ZK-0005iv-3L@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <vimla.c@gmail.com>) id 1Yd2ZD-0005iE-A2 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:15:19 +0000
Received: from mail-wg0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <vimla.c@gmail.com>) id 1Yd2ZC-0008Mi-Cs for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 20:15:19 +0000
Received: by wgoe14 with SMTP id e14so31463602wgo.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-type; bh=Zdt2ogveQSP/HUdGb1YGevDP6uOnYqhNifkQNc448/g=; b=K0azf66LWPybdmB/E9Pp1tQrBvTWqpeBUH29E5eG+TjfbGgeArNJldmNXS/Foe5jDp qaSxvBoZEy8mh2Hb3QcvjadZ726gtVnTr3lpVuPi44QAM+wBMhUqjWG5PiFqY6cPKzWG TMlEIP4xoWu7oGYTzlPNQo5CnzHFsW7MPd2XyL3f7E4KHDHFjgsiX6QUrYLjET/JuHi7 PCAoJtqx/PPccAUlbrIEAblhbqEG0yYrQ+nWMebLKMPujui7yK41cHsTf4DSZy+pcLiX mKXsnUoIDovIpM9njHvsPg72LZ49CxrG9RUiAydufPdQFaIJ97SSekCjxsIZqK+m+rhf VoLw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.90.34 with SMTP id bt2mr8549299wib.43.1427832892138; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.151.204 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACMu3toheWOPAmEFyuM-uH1NZkL-g2Tw-CuFbv_5fAOG8tyY-Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKwtvnAtuF-X3pgbgLe7VAdnMd4+Yy1EeZLaHgyXXTnZRBgFZw@mail.gmail.com> <CACMu3toR56=u+XG1qtGD=HP9Sy32rd_23QNRMzX3+XwucFYxhA@mail.gmail.com> <CACMu3toheWOPAmEFyuM-uH1NZkL-g2Tw-CuFbv_5fAOG8tyY-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:14:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKwtvnDh+mmJjf0V6UzZimX7ng0Um8StTdQd=Ej=-rHeWGjLOQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vimala Tadepalli <vimla.c@gmail.com>
To: Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org>
Cc: HTTP <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043c80e055abf305129b40fd"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.51; envelope-from=vimla.c@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f51.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: 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_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Yd2ZC-0008Mi-Cs a2016b50fbe9ee97c7ac9714c12bce3c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Header addition with HTTP 2.0
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAKwtvnDh+mmJjf0V6UzZimX7ng0Um8StTdQd=Ej=-rHeWGjLOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29135
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>

Yes. I am aware of that. With HTTP 2.0 even URL is inside the headers frame.
Basically it would be similar to adding a new header.
We have to decode with one context and re-encode with another context, so
that dynamic tables would not be messed up.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org> wrote:

> [re-posting from the right address]
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Vimala Tadepalli <vimla.c@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > In HTTP 2.0, can i do this?
> > If a header is added at firewall, client and server dynamic tables might
> go
> > out of sync. Will it cause any issues?
>
> Good question.  My understanding is that the firewall is supposed to
> re-encode the header.  That is, it should maintain a dynamic table on
> its connection with the client that stays in sync with that of the
> client, decode the header block using this dynamic table, and
> re-encode it towards the server using a context that is in sync with
> the server.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bence
>
>