Upgrade, hmmm...

Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com> Fri, 31 July 2020 23:50 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 8C5E33A0D5F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (768-bit key) header.from=mellowmutt@zoho.com header.d=zoho.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=zoho.com
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 AzwfQ67cUCwY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C7213A0D5E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1k1ekL-0006Xa-OY for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 23:47:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 23:47:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1k1ekL-0006Xa-OY@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mellowmutt@zoho.com>) id 1k1ekJ-0006Wp-MS for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 23:47:27 +0000
Received: from sender4-pp-o93.zoho.com ([136.143.188.93]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mellowmutt@zoho.com>) id 1k1ekH-0001iR-QW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 23:47:27 +0000
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1596239231; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=mwZthOq7deLpZtzNX0jgarYHtfOX75xZbNnqppbHzelNtNcnndgUAJFiRarZXoZvwwKJbGFzVHeP1ja975D7qC3wsPxkt9vzANNogi/I3/kUN40K50UQ0S3Ay/qx9ayIIqKFZn54cGk0EamNpYcfN7ONoXTPOUy1xlHcYxHDC50=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1596239231; h=Content-Type:Date:From:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:To; bh=q0hkDGmJK9fnaBg/P2D/Q1qquZHioctcrpISBrUWhPw=; b=WxaA3dmE483cEsovjRfbOohmSFglUb/092RfbNWP1FN9FjdalL7jDNvVAaNkqEZyj/T8HK7tPoh7z+eAXIklNCBAJcRGgEmOvOMuo7lwUxXUgs+4x6xFBOhdby/wi7LIA4lGe3kO5lOPkLjWzClprO4zhRGrv3cf5BcAnf247dk=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=zoho.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mellowmutt@zoho.com; dmarc=pass header.from=<mellowmutt@zoho.com> header.from=<mellowmutt@zoho.com>
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=zapps768; d=zoho.com; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:subject:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; b=MctEKe4ULSTpmmJ6FblBPY3JPGgNXJubdl2M12xnYbFx5cp8NTqI0e17D6bGmV3iRVMGn4+ZvU0Q WbzgiCkEOumrnk++xtDY7OcZJBg32Yt1j3F2CB95n8wprzquk772
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1596239231; s=zm2020; d=zoho.com; i=mellowmutt@zoho.com; h=Date:From:To:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=q0hkDGmJK9fnaBg/P2D/Q1qquZHioctcrpISBrUWhPw=; b=QyH8GnfVcmYrWmMEvmK1BqhIdXqxxxxFSInA/qs/CSP8nWg16NuWN86RYYwReqNw X4RVar35Dar9DVOV2cHEHFDgWAQakR7eR+xFWdMKihJiH3YCUPAyQ96bGjlpB6lmpA/ xBWUNrhjWP0xZnoAPlfqurHt3jv+ZoQQULmzVVcA=
Received: from mail.zoho.com by mx.zohomail.com with SMTP id 15962392306661008.4346701991957; Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [65.117.211.248] by mail.zoho.com with HTTP;Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:47:10 -0700
From: Eric J Bowman <mellowmutt@zoho.com>
To: "Ietf Http Wg" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <173a745b6b7.e84f51cd55203.5714415482168204840@zoho.com>
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_158721_1962295502.1596239230647"
Importance: Medium
User-Agent: Zoho Mail
X-Mailer: Zoho Mail
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=136.143.188.93; envelope-from=mellowmutt@zoho.com; helo=sender4-pp-o93.zoho.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1k1ekH-0001iR-QW 6906c015d4981cd236db077d41a3d19b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Upgrade, hmmm...
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/173a745b6b7.e84f51cd55203.5714415482168204840@zoho.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37916
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Please refer me to previous discussions about why h2 and h2c, but no h1, h1c, or h3.



I'm coding a webserver from scratch, with the goal of serving an index.html file and its ancillaries, over any of HTTP/1.1, HTTP/2, HTTP/3, FTP, WAKA (if Roy ever publishes it), or "ERIC" because I have my own ideas. Encrypted or not (I realize "not" isn't an option with HTTP/3). So the main loop is protocol-negotiation hell worse than any conneg/langneg I've ever coded.



If I'm hosting multiple websites on my service, I might want to default to h2, at this time. But if one of those client websites is a law firm, they don't care about serving legal definitions over "h1c" to incarcerated clients, who aren't allowed to use encryption unless it's attorney-client privileged communication. So, how does a gateway at the prison wall connect using h2 but request "Downgrade: h1c"? Or maybe there could be a "Protocol" header with a weighted list (lol).



(Taking a presentation I watched on YouTube by PHK, to heart -- some sovereign states disallow encryption, and heck, America's own FBI wants to kill it. But I agree it's important to be able to downgrade to cleartext.)


Or, why can't an h2c connection request Upgrade: h3? Coding my webserver to shift those gears, turns out to be trivial, all things considered at this point. So, why are only h2/h2c standardized as Upgrade tokens?



-Eric