Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Tue, 23 April 2013 09:27 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 8C78C21F9631 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.165
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 zHWK2ABfxdXy for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F78F21F9630 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UUZTU-0007hm-4o for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:25:20 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:25:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UUZTU-0007hm-4o@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UUZTP-0007h2-MK for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:25:15 +0000
Received: from mail-bk0-f48.google.com ([209.85.214.48]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UUZTO-0005lp-5u for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:25:15 +0000
Received: by mail-bk0-f48.google.com with SMTP id jf3so159421bkc.21 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=r/w+G/2D36ie8jpJxHTN1QIt4QEO0ibKGi2duqO2S48=; b=uOC0xjiyUMtVGWxQT8CpdjmA5Is18+6OfyKTUnxqUQBqp55IjvkXbmU2u8Pj8IzsKX NtM6siaZqoVqOXi6nys9bnEiJIhJRoosOIgDSX3w/gl1nYz3l92vAP4JL4v6GmVtx3f/ qAHDjaiiz0H9700KQEkRpyhf/Uk3tZF45DnlUvlvmej0IxgXMiqN4VLeIbUc5g54pHCt J1sIabBNDq4yvpz1kploI/JGwLL2Y6Kwrpp3pySa+Pyvp3VpZOAQuyfSCP1pLSitTcQ7 9jsQv6rCQCM0atWt4av28RmXI2Ijbnh/oTgNbYYNM8R6oaeJIxRqJiehBAw1ZR+J+E95 6Rzw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.205.99.130 with SMTP id cs2mr12010029bkc.118.1366709087864; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.205.8.7 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7B3A3DD8-BB24-4E09-831B-D27416B31622@mnot.net>
References: <B49447FF-CB94-43ED-9CA2-0698C64BB554@mnot.net> <20130420071042.GI26517@1wt.eu> <77849350-125C-4F36-8D78-0FF86DA0044E@mnot.net> <20130420071736.GK26517@1wt.eu> <BA1DBB8B-2E4D-49F5-AE98-F089A568BD4E@mnot.net> <20130423081209.GH8496@1wt.eu> <7B3A3DD8-BB24-4E09-831B-D27416B31622@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:24:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNe_xGvZSveE4hW0YmSTPvcbVytqtN5NX1wu2TmMH9w5QA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041704a5b1bf6a04db03c167
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.48; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-bk0-f48.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.735, 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UUZTO-0005lp-5u 7728c350dff819686ec6bdd6e328ff4e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNe_xGvZSveE4hW0YmSTPvcbVytqtN5NX1wu2TmMH9w5QA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17495
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>

A complication here is that it isn't sufficient to state the protocol as
HTTP/2
As an example assuming we may wish to use the version that negotiates using
ALPN over TLS/:443, we'd be unhappy unless we become more specific about
what the various version strings for (at least) HTTP/2 will mean in this
field.

In alternate-protocol, this was dealt with by having different version
strings for the possibly different negotiation mechanisms (though nothing
but NPN was really used), e.g.
npn-http/2 vs http/2 or, more completely, 443:npn-http/2 or 80:http/2

-=R


On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>; wrote:

> WFM
>
> On 23/04/2013, at 6:12 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>; wrote:
>
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 05:38:59PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> >> Proposal - add to p1 6.7:
> >>
> >> """
> >> When occurring in a request, Upgrade's value indicate the protocol(s)
> the
> >> client would like to upgrade to, in order of relative preference. When
> >> occurring in a 101 (Switching Protocols) response, there will usually
> only be
> >> one protocol indicated in Upgrade. When occurring in any other response,
> >> Upgrade indicates the protocol(s) the server is capable of upgrading
> to, in
> >> order of relative preference.
> >> """
> >
> > I'm OK in the principle, though I think this should be fused into
> existing
> > text, probably that way :
> >
> >   The "Upgrade" header field is intended to provide a simple mechanism
> >   for transitioning from HTTP/1.1 to some other protocol on the same
> >   connection.  A client MAY send a list of protocols in order of relative
> >   preference in the Upgrade header field of a request to invite the
> server
> >   to switch to one or more of those protocols before sending the final
> >   response.  A server MUST send an Upgrade header field in 101 (Switching
> >   Protocols) responses to indicate which protocol(s) are being switched
> >   to, and MUST send it in 426 (Upgrade Required) responses to indicate
> >   acceptable protocols in order of relative preference.  A server MAY
> >   send an Upgrade header field in any other response to indicate that
> >   they might be willing to upgrade to one of the specified protocols for
> >   a future request, in order of relative preference.
> >
> > Willy
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>