IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: H2 vs responses which should not carry any payload

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Fri, 23 October 2020 14:47 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 B240B3A0EE5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 07:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 7COp8d6lN7mR for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 07:47:04 -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 079A43A0FCE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 07:47:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kVyL8-0008KK-8L for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:46:46 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:46:46 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kVyL8-0008KK-8L@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 <w@1wt.eu>) id 1kVyL7-0008Iv-3D for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:46:45 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by titan.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1kVyL5-0001PI-BY for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:46:44 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 09NEkPSb005314; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 16:46:25 +0200
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 16:46:25 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, Eric Lawrence <Eric.Lawrence@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <20201023144625.GA5311@1wt.eu>
References: <20201023045426.GB4941@1wt.eu> <CACMu3tpPRzCnkbuTvEO9Tn5LQp+T++v21mDXU8fbn4JQHSSmaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACMu3tr6UiZg9xy7Cs5JtL2w12wd8VekhYo5UvuGuQob6OFaaA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CACMu3tr6UiZg9xy7Cs5JtL2w12wd8VekhYo5UvuGuQob6OFaaA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, 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: titan.w3.org 1kVyL5-0001PI-BY 93548a3cd4c4e90afcb350c137a97cc2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: H2 vs responses which should not carry any payload
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20201023144625.GA5311@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38113
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>

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 10:42:05AM -0400, Bence Béky wrote:
> Hi Willy,
> 
> Sorry, my previous e-mail was incorrect.  Chrome did run into some
> issues with buggy servers, and a fix to those servers has been
> deployed since.  Separately, the same bug is thought to exist in
> WinHTTP.  However, WinHTTP is a client-only stack, so this should only
> affect responses, not requests.  Which is exactly what you are worried
> about.

OK, thanks to you and Mike for the details :-)

This comforts me in the idea that we really need to do our best to
consider a bit of semantics when serializing the response and emit
ES immediately.

Cheers,
Willy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email