Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> Fri, 02 December 2016 01:03 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 EB8EB129A16 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:03:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.896 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 uu7CEnWPn8Hp for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:03:47 -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 BA4931293DF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:03:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cCcCy-00047C-3J for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 01:00:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 01:00:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cCcCy-00047C-3J@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 <kazuhooku@gmail.com>) id 1cCcCq-0007xN-Ne for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 01:00:04 +0000
Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <kazuhooku@gmail.com>) id 1cCcCk-0007Ji-2U for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:59:59 +0000
Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id f82so2552368wmf.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:59:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=q6DbXi75m5SqnsEZtYJ/RBCHB3IEvwJAiVbg839ub6s=; b=nnCSl7A7zwPG2zKhmaFHcJoWrUDgkutEyCbgMejd6aFhL4LIrwVHbvwoD4KY7d2AqN +VtZloEgVKOwju4J0bPb7jl+gqHS8zz1QTBA68/3SmVwv7wApk76ikVXiWKckBMN0PmJ BmBw6EOgIMGKjy0t66bt4Ilg+6F/qZjrj9kuDYph0qQR1f+yjQZqRDN6aA3tpQFkEUKQ v7n1bHR/7qnldNI5QlPPIqMcVkITBUPpDdcmbAKxX61L/S3fAxIgmUcnTHBZ0VQGxsJD sPwe/TKoNPza22VSUHyz8Jz00SxnTPUcxhhc3SOSJ9JOk1nE76HZ8+un0vDqFu5irR0T CMRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=q6DbXi75m5SqnsEZtYJ/RBCHB3IEvwJAiVbg839ub6s=; b=JKSVf+b1T9Yh93hhNJIwfFbnFurxX9d7IqKD20ldvjft6yTjXkhTM0t2K1qw6UNioY AtYYc41MylINPijCPsMGeUNs7OWAwapwxPpcbRhZF2BDRIJwz6Bu/xGkqfxkjrorgr/J k2bKsJgUpuWebt6ez2TxyDkHW5VYeoyzlFbEGChNw1uWkLURn6h1d4z+N3kVVBf/BQOu g/ZoyKAVs/Kf6N3ot3oQv1T0jnejpScCyGYHal2SGO33fwvSt0s9MUdjPwOGyzLyDc56 dhuVifdWHmKA2o7ymyKH14dWEUa4uNF0Weq3AuL6mDkLqzVkVGmwLCbBfDgMpxlkJgrL vDzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02pFghaMJTthhVDpTz/bBzph7JqunV6HzlbHLOiN4unTflFEHrHNHQFbFxB0SxtuMLN11jr2rBvvpKskQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.71.137 with SMTP id m9mr450880wmi.88.1480640371291; Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:59:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.32.1 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:59:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANatvzwoUYaC_YPTTF6fdwN5aOiwrttyH9Xj7xYVR1i1DZ27bA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 09:59:30 +0900
Message-ID: <CANatvzz1vqFYYeycNrXosAa4QxFsEV3S0bw+WCa1fjvCs1TO4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114c1ca25f018b0542a27332
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.41; envelope-from=kazuhooku@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm0-f41.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.501, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cCcCk-0007Ji-2U 2a1b3b476d76863bc3f2a2d93e6101e8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CANatvzz1vqFYYeycNrXosAa4QxFsEV3S0bw+WCa1fjvCs1TO4A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33078
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>

2016-12-02 9:56 GMT+09:00 Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>om>:

>
>
> 2016-12-02 9:19 GMT+09:00 Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>om>:
>
>> On 2 December 2016 at 11:09, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 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.
>
> Personally, I think using both SETTINGS (or introducing a new frame) and
> ALPN solves the shortcomings (and the reluctance). We could consider ALPN
> as a method to specify the application protocol (e.g. HTTP or WS or DNS),
> and use SETTINGS for permitting additional protocols to be coalesced.
>
>
Please let me correct the last sentence to the following:

We could consider ALPN as a method to specify the application protocol
(e.g. HTTP or WS or DNS) on the first flight, and use SETTINGS for
permitting additional protocols to be coalesced.

"on the first flight" was missing.

-- 
> Kazuho Oku
>



-- 
Kazuho Oku