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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 23 April 2013 09:36 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 D24FC21F8606 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, 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 IUpRLnUdoxJs for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AE421F85CB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UUZdh-00051y-5V for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:35:53 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:35:53 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UUZdh-00051y-5V@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UUZdc-00051J-UF for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:35:48 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UUZdb-0006J7-QQ for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:35:48 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D07C5509B6; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 05:35:24 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNe_xGvZSveE4hW0YmSTPvcbVytqtN5NX1wu2TmMH9w5QA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:35:21 +1000
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <00F2FE82-F9A7-40AD-B829-6D82C16A75A4@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> <CAP+FsNe_xGvZSveE4hW0YmSTPvcbVytqtN5NX1wu2TmMH9w5QA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.391, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UUZdb-0006J7-QQ 0e74c4888ecc220706ce72fb1bd03b06
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/00F2FE82-F9A7-40AD-B829-6D82C16A75A4@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17496
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>

On 23/04/2013, at 7:24 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>; wrote:

> 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.

I think that's the plan...

> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/