IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling?

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 11 February 2015 05:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ietf.org@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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260301A1B3C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:06:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 iLq-yWXJ7g8D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:06:03 -0800 (PST)
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 737CB1A6EFC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:05:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YLPQu-0000oh-T5 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:01:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:01:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YLPQu-0000oh-T5@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1YLPQn-0000nG-3a for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:01:45 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1YLPQm-0003mB-5R for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:01:45 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wp4so1295553obc.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:01:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=I558nDmMbZPg/HXStbQpxBikgFkEvLsqEB/1pEK8wz8=; b=MSB3bIaZ3XAvqQtcwMXuuN9WS8x28njl6qTqBjekEILIwmo9xho1GG//rTBB4PTyz7 1bBwGj8L33uBJkEsTtzMgDwMqOlkB6HVvu9cvJaYp9s43czMNzCwJdcER/bfJkK8uxJ0 v5oYNu233o5L5bZp9yjgw4mV3xk0xEAtBVt5631bSZfpeVoydbM+7Ls6oFDQk4dZ/+1D 2r5amrfbva+3h/CTzlaKwDCoc5q3C1o44RLfLbC0UjUxEbi73fmQFbJyLkw/Ho6vSNfb 9u5yEDUfykF/V6jekB7KJMQm9MMsOtJGyjtNB6JShYgLR2l1W43YUmLX6kf1LJ3pwj21 +zzw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.75.8 with SMTP id y8mr12565751oia.12.1423630878128; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:01:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.202.225.135 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 21:01:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1467A259-E3B4-4249-BAC4-CC4D1BA1935D@apple.com>
References: <CAH_y2NE5Sa625XEec5WXJ7LdjK+h1b4M=Fc-_iGj2ZQKa1q_jg@mail.gmail.com> <5C91DE2C-BC82-4142-B292-815EED3627EC@mnot.net> <54DAA3A4.8060608@treenet.co.nz> <CAH_y2NG0_Y9nnDjLd2Fc_5wBessfy0DOfKBfkH8NiKjyzAiRVg@mail.gmail.com> <54DABF12.70609@treenet.co.nz> <1467A259-E3B4-4249-BAC4-CC4D1BA1935D@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:01:18 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUUNfHrX=KTp307F+war3nxNW6XDJGspeKCu3chDAZwBw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.169; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f169.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.664, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1YLPQm-0003mB-5R ccf7580c7f7adfdec0c287b91e43c458
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnUUNfHrX=KTp307F+war3nxNW6XDJGspeKCu3chDAZwBw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28812
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 11 February 2015 at 14:14, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:
> Um, with all due respect HTTP/1.1 is a Proposed Standard with a lot of years of deployment, while HTTP/2.0 is *almost* a Draft Standard.  Why are we talking about "a deprecated 1.x"?

Well... We're headed for "Proposed Standard", which is the same status
as HTTP/1.1, so from a process standpoint they will be on equal
footing.  But there is no question that HTTP/1.1 is far more mature
and interoperable.

My interpretation is that 1.1 hasn't advanced to Draft or Full
Standard is some combination of conservatism and a general
unwillingness to do the necessary busywork, but I'm sure that Julian
would have a more precise answer since I always tune out during those
conversations.

You are probably reading too much into the language people use though.
Many of us here simply want to use HTTP/2 for all the reasons that we
decided to work on it and implement it.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status