IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow

"Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Wed, 17 April 2013 23:11 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 09B2E21F8D90 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 dF2mqV15pq08 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840F421F8D29 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1USbVX-0006xJ-IF for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:11:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:11:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1USbVX-0006xJ-IF@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1USbVU-0006w4-VG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:11:17 +0000
Received: from smtp.qbik.com ([210.55.214.35]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1USbVU-0004g9-4C for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:11:16 +0000
Received: From [192.168.0.10] (unverified [192.168.0.10]) by SMTP Server [192.168.0.1] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v8.0.0 (Build 3531)) with SMTP id <0019655232@smtp.qbik.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:10:53 +1200
From: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
To: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, Ilya Grigorik <ilya@igvita.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:10:53 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
In-Reply-To: <ab7adefc5017458a94649984e35738e7@BN1PR03MB072.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Message-Id: <em72808be3-bf20-45c2-a6c7-b0eece27dc8f@bombed>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/5.0.17595.0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=210.55.214.35; envelope-from=adrien@qbik.com; helo=smtp.qbik.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.976, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.556, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1USbVU-0004g9-4C f60756ea1d774ad7cb0e7521e5c02b35
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/em72808be3-bf20-45c2-a6c7-b0eece27dc8f@bombed>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17314
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>

Hi

------ Original Message ------
From: "Gabriel Montenegro" <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
>
>>  >I think that you either send the session header immediately after 
>>the
>>  >first request (the Upgrade) and risk having it swalled,
>>  that could do nasty things if the server is only 1.1
>>
>>  >or you send it
>>  >immediately before the next (HTTP/2.0) request. In either case, you
>>  >don't incur an RTT delay.
>>  next request may not exist.
>
>So the client is done then. Why is it an issue? What would be gained by 
>the client sending its session header after it was done effectively 
>using the session?

proxy doesn't know if the client is done or not.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email