Re: HTTP Request+Response issues

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Wed, 24 April 2013 18:16 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 AD29121F8FA4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.154
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.339, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_NEED_REPLY=0.784]
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 jZrKUq4WjcN8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A41721F8F4A for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UV4Et-00058t-56 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:16:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:16:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UV4Et-00058t-56@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1UV4El-00056w-Lv for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:16:11 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1UV4Eg-0001Ua-NB for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:16:11 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id uk5so1759669obc.25 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Q0KGmp6e6BLe8uZy9fGNRU0DxR4TTlfsJmpGxU6mB98=; b=Pbnw4NNIEFnyzK5jVa+3EWHJN96LdvjdQY+6vy99jtxREN3Rucni6YijXz2CuCgM+j fN9YJXRrCqlrRfST2Wjr7qdO4lxPJrYTQc2nuVjeQoz3CEFOlpMISo1CV7/qrufZ3dlT vjp5GLLB4VfHKuxNkcOzT2JKnRxtLnC0LCmYZ0BqhC4nokeDwrU80k85YcclYOefiVi2 Gg7xZcXu0v/cOeskSCy1Oih0oW1Pb/QHHO9V65bUfZMwxvbteoGduBgREQv2QhX2TJp2 8UWtd16zaC4YIB7xSViwqLTOiV2QkHzCDJWedtt4dFi1Gr7GmKJIy0K5w0YGUJQNTlio A4iw==
X-Received: by 10.182.129.7 with SMTP id ns7mr13721673obb.77.1366827340806; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.3.137 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWWmJest8GLdrt=wkM4-BWgvCvWX68S_dM-1TChANkrtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbebepmG=zVnj+X1DGy-4d8p7U15+vTjyba5cOYLyedKog@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWWmJest8GLdrt=wkM4-BWgvCvWX68S_dM-1TChANkrtA@mail.gmail.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:15:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfjQnThCEoE9h8V8=o5NsGUxPew2YyFPmAx4OGGU8syVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f180.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.649, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UV4Eg-0001Ua-NB 6586ed989ade5482e4ffded5e8c5f8dc
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP Request+Response issues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7RbfjQnThCEoE9h8V8=o5NsGUxPew2YyFPmAx4OGGU8syVA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17551
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>

Done. Now: https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/69

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com>; wrote:
> I think that this is right.  You ultimately have to reach the
> conclusion that responses are in the same stream as the request, but
> that should be express, not implied.
>
> James, can you create an editorial issue in the github repo?  We (the
> editors) will get to it when we can.
>
> On 24 April 2013 09:58, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>; wrote:
>> Reading through the current draft, unless I missed it, it needs to be
>> clarified that HTTP request and responses MUST be sent within the same
>> stream unless we specifically want to allow responses to be sent in a
>> different stream than the request.
>>
>> For instance:
>>
>> Request:
>>   Stream-ID: 1
>>   :method: get
>>
>> Response:  (server uses the same stream)
>>   Stream-ID: 1
>>   :status: 200
>>
>> OR...
>>
>> Request:
>>   Stream-ID: 1
>>   :method: get
>>
>> Response: (server uses a different stream)
>>   Stream-ID: 2
>>   :status: 200
>>
>> Currently, it appears that this is an unspoken assumption in the spec
>> text that needs to be called out explicitly. Or, if it's already
>> there, it needs to be made more visible.
>>
>> - James
>>