IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)

"Peter Occil" <poccil14@gmail.com> Fri, 17 May 2013 04:26 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 36B7511E80E4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 21:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.175
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.175 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.711, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, TVD_FINGER_02=2.134]
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 omUCT40M77yn for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 21:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE94C11E80C5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 21:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UdCFI-0006Sc-JX for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 May 2013 04:26:20 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 04:26:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UdCFI-0006Sc-JX@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <poccil14@gmail.com>) id 1UdCF7-0006Rs-11 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 May 2013 04:26:09 +0000
Received: from mail-gh0-f179.google.com ([209.85.160.179]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <poccil14@gmail.com>) id 1UdCF2-0004Vp-1h for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 17 May 2013 04:26:08 +0000
Received: by mail-gh0-f179.google.com with SMTP id f16so269570ghb.24 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 21:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority :x-msmail-priority:importance:x-mailer:x-mimeole; bh=QOQlIN2RjLL4A2Jm2t421/7pKeE+TSPWbU0y8kRsfLU=; b=f6Iqd+MGhkyrC9bpxpBM6OQROI2HpAFWRhzZIjZxU9WlIGXuJ07aL3TxWoR+s/Ivvw c1z4Kr8y/qb5Y7Cj+fsm6A4Ka2QW3//eVlqLjQgA69xzIdou0Z5DlCUHU+iyNmYAbmQt Ijb7p6yu2Aj0APwn51at/8/hr1LV2tFTc3r+DfOEd3LAaX+zNP8XeOt9dDqanW4kwQCc /7K/GkaAP+JTGf/U1FsukOr6+3y6dv7nGloVp7pO3VkGFdpcT4j7vcfI470n3uB8ZJjC Ot3pS/yW6ZLZb6y/QBZDE8hchL2EUqMZMkCxODjnSq3ujG0yaqk+7vmcpOEqU45iwHeK +GPg==
X-Received: by 10.236.181.231 with SMTP id l67mr23948102yhm.203.1368764738187; Thu, 16 May 2013 21:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PeterPC (c-76-119-210-197.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [76.119.210.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n15sm14591876yhi.2.2013.05.16.21.25.36 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 16 May 2013 21:25:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3190BAC22CE04E42BE6CCA933F3F86EE@PeterPC>
From: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <F786D0A4-F4BD-4A85-8078-F6BBCABA32AC@mnot.net> <77A7C7D824C7440AA937222E970BD96A@PeterPC> <BE3B2E23-DEF4-44C9-A97D-17C2536D08F8@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <BE3B2E23-DEF4-44C9-A97D-17C2536D08F8@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 00:25:28 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.160.179; envelope-from=poccil14@gmail.com; helo=mail-gh0-f179.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.285, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.212, TVD_FINGER_02=1.544
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UdCF2-0004Vp-1h 32a19cc98a3a0096a973e54b8033cccf
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/3190BAC22CE04E42BE6CCA933F3F86EE@PeterPC>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18021
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>

One more thing:  The phrase "order of relative preference" is ambiguous; 
does it mean an ascending order or a descending order?
I prefer a descending order, myself, but it's up to you.

--Peter

-----Original Message----- 
From: Mark Nottingham
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:15 PM
To: Peter Occil
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)

Makes sense; I recorded that in the ticket.

Thanks,


On 15/05/2013, at 11:17 AM, Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> wrote:

> I suggest the following change, since otherwise it could be understood 
> that the server may return the protocols in any
> order instead of in order of relative preference in a 101 response:
>
> "A server MUST send an Upgrade header field in 101
> (Switching Protocols) responses to indicate which
> protocol(s) are being switched to, in order of relative preference,
> and MUST send it in 426 (Upgrade Required) responses [etc]."
>
> --Peter

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

v2.19.0 | Report a Bug | By Email