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

Kari Hurtta <> Thu, 20 October 2016 09:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A11312956F for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 02:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.332
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TgwXmSsV0dIy for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 02:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4A7412946D for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 02:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bx9kC-0001MI-Ca for; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:34:36 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:34:36 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bx9k7-0001LX-5k for; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:34:31 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bx9k1-0002ta-KB for; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 09:34:29 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB25113BFC; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:33:57 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([IPv6:::ffff:]) by localhost ( [::ffff:]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vZO0QfUo6iJ5; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:33:56 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BEBD2310; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:33:56 +0300 (EEST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
To: HTTP working group mailing list <>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:33:55 +0300
From: Kari Hurtta <>
CC: Kazuho Oku <>, Tom Bergan <>, Ilari Liusvaara <>, Van Catha <>
X-Mailer: ELM [version ME+ 2.5 PLalpha42+]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=;;
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: 1bx9k1-0002ta-KB 38ed0c611f5e24c44b2ff57df01e66ae
Subject: Re: Re: Quick review for draft-svirid-websocket2-over-http2 (Was: Re: Draft HTTPbis Agenda For Seoul IETF 97)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32653
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

> This could be the case for any HTTP/2 gateway that translates incoming
> requests to HTTP/1, that does not reject unknown schemes. And whether
> such gateway needs to reject schemes that do not match to the
> request-response model of HTTP seems to be vague in reading RFC 7540.
> Section states that:
>       ":scheme" is not restricted to "http" and "https" schemed URIs.  A
>       proxy or gateway can translate requests for non-HTTP schemes,
>       enabling the use of HTTP to interact with non-HTTP services.
> My interpretation of this paragraph would be that it is permitted for
> an HTTP/2 intermediary to transmit requests with schemes other than
> "http" or "https", expecting that an upstream server would process the
> request according to the scheme, considering the fact that (per my
> understanding) such action is permitted in HTTP/1.1.

Yes. HTTP/2 explicitly uses HTTP/1.1 semantic. 

8.  HTTP Message Exchanges

|   Thus, the specification and requirements of HTTP/1.1 Semantics and
|   Content [RFC7231], Conditional Requests [RFC7232], Range Requests
|   [RFC7233], Caching [RFC7234], and Authentication [RFC7235] are
|   applicable to HTTP/2.  Selected portions of HTTP/1.1 Message Syntax
|   and Routing [RFC7230], such as the HTTP and HTTPS URI schemes, are
|   also applicable in HTTP/2, but the expression of those semantics for
|   this protocol are defined in the sections below.

3.1.  Client Handshake Request

| 3.1.  Client Handshake Request
|    The client MUST use the :method GET.
|    The client MUST send a sec-ws2-version header that MUST specify the
|    websocket2 version being used.
|    The client MAY send a sec-ws2-compression header that advertises the
|    compression methods the client supports.  Valid key value pairs
|   include:


| The client MUST NOT set the END_STREAM flag when sending the headers.

Note however that this apply:

4.3.1.  GET

|   A payload within a GET request message has no defined semantics;
|   sending a payload body on a GET request might cause some existing
|   implementations to reject the request.
|   The response to a GET request is cacheable; a cache MAY use it to
|   satisfy subsequent GET and HEAD requests unless otherwise indicated
|   by the Cache-Control header field (Section 5.2 of [RFC7234]).

Changing of scheme does not change semantic of methods.

2.  Resources

|   One design goal of HTTP is to separate resource identification from
|   request semantics, which is made possible by vesting the request
|   semantics in the request method (Section 4) and a few
|   request-modifying header fields (Section 5).  If there is a conflict
|   between the method semantics and any semantic implied by the URI
|   itself, as described in Section 4.2.1, the method semantics take
|   precedence.

( scheme is part of URI )

2.7.  Uniform Resource Identifiers

|   Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) [RFC3986] are used throughout
|   HTTP as the means for identifying resources (Section 2 of [RFC7231]).
|   URI references are used to target requests, indicate redirects, and
|   define relationships.

/ Kari Hurtta