WebSocket2

Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> Sat, 01 October 2016 05:21 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 C704B12B17E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 22:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316, 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 utZlCnnwnjLB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 22:21:36 -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 DC69F12B03B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 22:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bqCg5-0000Zs-3O for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 05:17:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2016 05:17:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bqCg5-0000Zs-3O@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <khurtta@welho.com>) id 1bqCg0-0000Yu-Gd for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 05:17:32 +0000
Received: from welho-filter1.welho.com ([83.102.41.23]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <khurtta@welho.com>) id 1bqCfv-0002XY-Uj for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 01 Oct 2016 05:17:29 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter1.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 245FA10F65; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 08:17:00 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp2.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.85]) by localhost (welho-filter1.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.23]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JrKNFKYnO64V; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 08:16:59 +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-smtp2.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90C6021C; Sat, 1 Oct 2016 08:16:59 +0300 (EEST)
In-Reply-To: <CAG-EYCjx5=tExsjOJ+_-5p95Vp=Wfaz8JihDAAykDQpL64T4TA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAG-EYCjx5=tExsjOJ+_-5p95Vp=Wfaz8JihDAAykDQpL64T4TA@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 08:16:59 +0300 (EEST)
Sender: hurtta@hurtta09lk.keh.iki.fi
From: Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
CC: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>, Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version ME+ 2.5 PLalpha41+]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id: <20161001051700.245FA10F65@welho-filter1.welho.com>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=83.102.41.23; envelope-from=khurtta@welho.com; helo=welho-filter1.welho.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bqCfv-0002XY-Uj 7af27ea86a23d2e31afa54507ebcc387
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: WebSocket2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20161001051700.245FA10F65@welho-filter1.welho.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32431
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>

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2016JulSep/0615.html

> I drafted up a rough RFC to support WebSocket2
> https://github.com/vans163/websocket2-drafts/blob/master/websocket2-over-http2.txt


( Very quick reading )

I'm not sure that is this problem or not 

https://github.com/vans163/websocket2-drafts/blob/master/websocket2-over-http2.txt

> 4.  Data Framing
> 
>    Once a handshake has been successfully completed the remote endpoints
>    can begin to send data to each other.  Data is sent using the HTTP/2
>    transport layer fully adhering to DATA Frames, Section 6.1 [RFC7540].
>    WebSocket2 has its own encapsulated framing protocol that is not to
>    be confused with HTTP/2 DATA Frames.


So these websockect frames are inside of HTTP/2 DATA frame
payload.

> 3.1.  Client Handshake Request

and

> 3.2. Server Handshake Reply

These use HTTP/2 HEADERS frame.



1) So consider situation

+---------------+                     +-----------+                   +--------+
|  Web          |  ---- HTTP/2 ---->  |  proxy    | ---- HTTP/2 ----> | origin |  
|  browser      |                     |           |                   | server |
+---------------+                     +-----------+                   +--------+
 

"Web server" and "origin server" supports 
"WebSocket2 over HTTP/2" and handshake 
with headers frames succeed.

"proxy" does not know about
"WebSocket2 over HTTP/2".


There there start using of HTTP/2 DATA
frames. These usage however differ
very much from usage of http -request
and response.

Perhaps "proxy" tries cache response.

Perhaps there should be some method
to verify that also "proxy" supports
"WebSocket2 over HTTP/2".

One method is to use HTTP/2 SETTINGS -frame.
(Another method is to use new frame
 type on HTTP/2. )


2) One note

> 3.2. Server Handshake Reply

If "origin server"  doe snot know about
"WebSocket2 over HTTP/2", this looks like 
regular request for page "/ws2".
This can still succeed.

>   The server MUST send ONLY ONE of the advertised compression methods
>   or exclude the websocket2-compression header from the reply,
>   signaling that no compression will be used.

Wgen websocket2-compression is excluded, client
gets /ws2 -resource with
:status: 200

and client does not know is this supporting 
"WebSocket2 over HTTP/2" or not.


Or have I missed something?

/ Kari Hurtta