Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Fri, 02 December 2016 01:57 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 646BC1299DA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:57:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, 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 j1j3qONFVeSJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:57:54 -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 BC844129400 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:57:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cCd3I-0004h1-Kb for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 01:54:16 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 01:54:16 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cCd3I-0004h1-Kb@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1cCd3D-0004ch-7P for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 01:54:11 +0000
Received: from [121.99.228.82] (helo=treenet.co.nz) by titan.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1cCd36-00025h-1T for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 01:54:06 +0000
Received: from [192.168.20.251] (unknown [121.98.41.216]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105F6E6EB1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:53:29 +1300 (NZDT)
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <CAOdDvNqk7W_oNWUismMb-ZuhvdboZNDQ0YV2BLsbka-FGC-7oA@mail.gmail.com> <39F32B28-7116-478A-B02A-E8310EA6E189@mnot.net> <CABkgnnVZeLQGES5Dige8u+ukSgqSfJNKiCuL=oK3gQnAb_3LNw@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzwoUYaC_YPTTF6fdwN5aOiwrttyH9Xj7xYVR1i1DZ27bA@mail.gmail.com> <037D2D57-7423-4375-9FEC-50B3106F42ED@mnot.net> <CANatvzx=mOQ3kE-vnvwNvD2w26+RNTueHgu7BhHLnJixn0vRcw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Message-ID: <9e6f1a46-a782-a688-5b16-836d28032823@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:53:08 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANatvzx=mOQ3kE-vnvwNvD2w26+RNTueHgu7BhHLnJixn0vRcw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.204, BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cCd36-00025h-1T e8048d07fb33950a1820dfa7315e4e8e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/9e6f1a46-a782-a688-5b16-836d28032823@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33082
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 2/12/2016 2:13 p.m., Kazuho Oku wrote:
> 2016-12-02 10:00 GMT+09:00 Mark Nottingham:
> 
>>
>>> On 2 Dec. 2016, at 11:56 am, Kazuho Oku wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-12-02 9:19 GMT+09:00 Martin Thomson:
>>> On 2 December 2016 at 11:09, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> In particular, my recollection of the outcome of the discussion of WS
>> in H2 was that a new SETTING or a new ALPN token could be used to indicate
>> that a connection supports both H2 and WS. If there's a problem with doing
>> so, that would be good to talk about as well. Especially considering QUIC.
>>>
>>> There seems to be some reluctance to exercise that option.  I don't
>>> understand why; I've a bunch of candidate theories, but none of them
>>> make a lot of sense.
>>>
>>>
>>> My understanding is that the cons of using SETTINGS only is that it
>> requires an additional roundtrip on connection establishment. I've heard
>> people oppose to the use of ALPN since they want to use both H2 and WS (and
>> possibly DNS?) on the same connection.
>>
>> The semantics of the ALPN token can be "this connection supports H2 *and*
>> WS."
>>
>> It's true that taken to an extreme, this could lead to a combinatorial
>> explosion.
> 
> 
> Agreed. While I believe it would be a good idea to have some kind of
> mechanism to restrict the use of an H2 connection, a client need to be
> forbidden for making an anticipation that the connection can also handle
> HTTP requests.

Please don't go there. The 'h' in h2 means HTTP by definition.

WS/1 has its own TCP based sockets etc for use by connections without HTTP.

An ALPN for that or for a separate WS/2 protocol spec that references
HTTP/2 mechanisms and framing as a re-use (like ICAP with HTTP/1) should
be sufficient.

But not re-defining h2 to mean non-HTTP-only traffic.

Amos