Re: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 17 May 2013 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 3DD9221F8F28 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 21:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.861
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.861 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.738, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kNzOIoiBTl-K for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 21:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9E3521F8F33 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 21:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UdCaH-0002nI-7C for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 May 2013 04:48:01 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 04:48:01 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UdCaH-0002nI-7C@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UdCa5-0002m5-PN for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 17 May 2013 04:47:49 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UdCa5-0005ET-1V for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 17 May 2013 04:47:49 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.105.214]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A7D222E257; Fri, 17 May 2013 00:47:26 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <3190BAC22CE04E42BE6CCA933F3F86EE@PeterPC>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:47:21 +1000
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <28ECAB06-BBE5-4FC0-9216-DEFBAB17D953@mnot.net>
References: <F786D0A4-F4BD-4A85-8078-F6BBCABA32AC@mnot.net> <77A7C7D824C7440AA937222E970BD96A@PeterPC> <BE3B2E23-DEF4-44C9-A97D-17C2536D08F8@mnot.net> <3190BAC22CE04E42BE6CCA933F3F86EE@PeterPC>
To: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.362, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UdCa5-0005ET-1V 01553a5622cc0bc651f4f11cf0919b71
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/28ECAB06-BBE5-4FC0-9216-DEFBAB17D953@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18022
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>

Left a note in the ticket about that, thanks again.

On 17/05/2013, at 2:25 PM, Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>; wrote:

> One more thing:  The phrase "order of relative preference" is ambiguous; does it mean an ascending order or a descending order?
> I prefer a descending order, myself, but it's up to you.
> 
> --Peter
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:15 PM
> To: Peter Occil
> Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)
> 
> Makes sense; I recorded that in the ticket.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> On 15/05/2013, at 11:17 AM, Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
>> I suggest the following change, since otherwise it could be understood that the server may return the protocols in any
>> order instead of in order of relative preference in a 101 response:
>> 
>> "A server MUST send an Upgrade header field in 101
>> (Switching Protocols) responses to indicate which
>> protocol(s) are being switched to, in order of relative preference,
>> and MUST send it in 426 (Upgrade Required) responses [etc]."
>> 
>> --Peter
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/