IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Is the response header "Upgrade: h2" allowed when TLS is used?

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Tue, 19 April 2016 16:51 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 653F312E3E3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 09:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.917 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=-0.996, 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 IDsbsRBXFy80 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 09:51:03 -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 1EDC012E1D7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 09:51:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1asYn9-0008DE-Ts for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:46:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:46:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1asYn9-0008DE-Ts@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 <w@1wt.eu>) id 1asYn6-0008Bz-Hf for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:46:20 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1asYn4-0006pN-Tq for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:46:20 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u3JGjqhT008583; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:45:52 +0200
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:45:52 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Cc: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, Lucas Pardue <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20160419164552.GA8580@1wt.eu>
References: <20160419161634.Horde.7_VYZk5McZE4CAiQrQh-uXr@webmail.michael-kaufmann.ch> <7CF7F94CB496BF4FAB1676F375F9666A2A7CBD72@bgb01xud1012> <BE75D624-3A89-463A-B860-A2E83613C199@lukasa.co.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1604191756270.6220@tvnag.unkk.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1604191756270.6220@tvnag.unkk.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.925, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1asYn4-0006pN-Tq 23fdd9fe8df6a13994a85b192428f55e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Is the response header "Upgrade: h2" allowed when TLS is used?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20160419164552.GA8580@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31513
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 Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 06:00:36PM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Cory Benfield wrote:
> 
> >>Stefan and Daniel point out that the server uses the Upgrade header to
> >>"advertise support" for h2.
> >
> >I don???t think that???s really a good way to read this section of RFC 7230.
> 
> I'd like to point out that my argument in that report was when the client in
> question originally took the Upgrade: response header as some sort of
> instruction of what to do next, while I'm saying Upgrade: in a response
> header is only an advertisement for support - not an instruction to do
> anything. I said that disregarding the actual protocol it mentioned.

Absolutely, "101 Switching Protocol" would be needed here for an action to
take place.

> I think Upgrade: should probably say h2c as a h2 in there begs the question
> what that really means...

Well, we knew that having two names for the same thing would cause trouble :-)

Willy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email