Re: Quick review for draft-svirid-websocket2-over-http2 (Was: Re: Draft HTTPbis Agenda For Seoul IETF 97)

Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> Thu, 20 October 2016 07:23 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 46DA1129876 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ndwJ0z3lC-Ld for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:23:47 -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 5D2EA129511 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bx7dP-0007iB-Bt for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:19:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:19:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bx7dP-0007iB-Bt@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <khurtta@welho.com>) id 1bx7dI-0007gY-L3 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:19:20 +0000
Received: from welho-filter3.welho.com ([83.102.41.25]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <khurtta@welho.com>) id 1bx7dF-00009e-0T for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 07:19:19 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter3.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D2D135C6; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:18:49 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp3.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.86]) by localhost (welho-filter3.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.25]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I6VSdZjyEA-H; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:18:48 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from hurtta09lk.keh.iki.fi (89-27-35-245.bb.dnainternet.fi [89.27.35.245]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp3.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0FD12310; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:18:47 +0300 (EEST)
In-Reply-To: <CANatvzzJ89JKteRrhO19c6gmw5xdbZMKMFwUPjQpQhjWM1VOvA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANatvzzJ89JKteRrhO19c6gmw5xdbZMKMFwUPjQpQhjWM1VOvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:18:47 +0300 (EEST)
Sender: hurtta@hurtta09lk.keh.iki.fi
From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
CC: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>, Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: ELM [version ME+ 2.5 PLalpha42+]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id: <20161020071849.33D2D135C6@welho-filter3.welho.com>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=83.102.41.25; envelope-from=khurtta@welho.com; helo=welho-filter3.welho.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.343, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.316, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bx7dF-00009e-0T e726f38cff3174a59df58150d7fb3b18
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Quick review for draft-svirid-websocket2-over-http2 (Was: Re: Draft HTTPbis Agenda For Seoul IETF 97)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20161020071849.33D2D135C6@welho-filter3.welho.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32650
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>

> In case of H2O, all schemes are handling equally at the protocol
> layer. In other words, whatever the :scheme is, the server is designed
> to wait for a request, and then send response.


Yes.

There is one exception however. When there is no :scheme and :method is
CONNECT.

But all :scheme:s are equal.  HTTP is used to connect to proxy
and that is HTTP request/response model. Proxy then translate
request to protocol indicated by :scheme.

> So if we are to start using the HTTP/2 framing layer to transmit
> websocket or other bi-directional communication, I think we should
> require negotiation using SETTINGS frame.

Yes, I suggested that also.  (There was many posts
about SETTINGS_WEBSOCKET_CAPABLE).

/ Kari Hurtta


https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-svirid-websocket2-over-http2-00#appendix-A

|   The author wishes to thank Kari hurtta for contributing the
|   handshake.