Re: HTTP/2 Upgrade with content?

Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com> Fri, 13 March 2015 16:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ietf.org@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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 716721A00C5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 U_-uCb-PjmZP for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
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 C69581A010C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YWSgv-0006oY-Gl for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:44:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:44:05 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YWSgv-0006oY-Gl@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>) id 1YWSgm-0006kE-R3 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:43:56 +0000
Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>) id 1YWSgh-0001u8-DP for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:43:56 +0000
Received: by igbhl2 with SMTP id hl2so3700878igb.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
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 :content-type; bh=HYsr9wPWO/ib27mTm0rA0e/Ed2iyzs5L8h+R2hAwDa0=; b=Sp1KXI007kePXlvc96YgoY3VJkzyIgUHro3nFHBkqqEEOBxj9PnEgNQnP/UdBDh1VM PotD0Y9UjudDE6Df3HpNE4cUKLWAC9E751PIivnhAr8OqGmhoQqdNEUg6PnQXknuCCTP Ft4XA3F9HXf1DY35NwpwFjEm9Zz8GH1sjy8soVbI/vr1ZC7mlNQpFOoi66D5z8ySUUV/ zzqXhowfWLAO7paOZynx4SdHtzft7QKaAzNkNyRyRlFp/ilrpS2xpX4+d0o4IuBDSMP+ tG9w/WMURliejM2Hs6aGVaIjnAZEOPWeTdY/EA5QV4BSAbFLhwqp8SvMEXfLPHKnaS3K EokA==
X-Received: by 10.107.168.5 with SMTP id r5mr84270862ioe.87.1426265005642; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:43:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.73.8 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 09:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5502F5C7.8030604@zinks.de>
References: <CAH_y2NF3iwND1ttQDY98KC_u=OZj5aqEABmXHKObMgqPH1npLg@mail.gmail.com> <BL2PR03MB1323474B977B051738AD09187060@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAH_y2NFV=Z7hqbtWTdiePRwUnhhRjiP8R_Ua7kmpZEkwXtxgEA@mail.gmail.com> <B5C01B7A-9215-4268-B189-E6281F425BF7@greenbytes.de> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1503130833190.13706@tvnag.unkk.fr> <6E036F2D-AED0-4323-ACCB-D8036168E6C1@redhat.com> <CAH_y2NFjb0mx8Rs+qg6uJ=zgUzHW3ksiOSN4_GXubKG-P2QDaw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1503131457030.27951@tvnag.unkk.fr> <B6CAD842-64A1-4D7B-839C-852AF5AAD221@greenbytes.de> <5502F5C7.8030604@zinks.de>
From: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 01:43:05 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPyZ6=JD79jMqoJ-aay9qqNY0a8qagPAmGMKpvpj4QCjWYrbpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11421f2e045cd005112e33dc"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.213.181; envelope-from=tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f181.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.725, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YWSgh-0001u8-DP 05e0faee2be48771ff89d82d0c1f2c39
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP/2 Upgrade with content?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAPyZ6=JD79jMqoJ-aay9qqNY0a8qagPAmGMKpvpj4QCjWYrbpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28965
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 Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de> wrote:

> On 13.03.2015 15:21, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>
>> Well, this discussion quickly dove into the quantum foam between
>> specification and deployed software.
>>
>> I take away from it:
>> - that protocol switching happens immediately after the 101 response -
>> for the downstream. On the upstream it switches after the request has been
>> read. Pretty obvious in hindsight, as those things are.
>> - servers should be predictable in upgrading, either always with content
>> or only without.
>> - the common use case for upgrade on POST does not benefit from h2c and
>> this it seems not worth the effort to implement. Fullfilling the request on
>> HTTP/1.1 format seems to work fine.
>> - maybe a mixed 1.1 up and h2c down request could be made to work, but
>> there seems no gain for anyone in creating this mythical beast.
>>
>> //Stefan
>>
>>  Another thing which the client may do if it needs to send a POST request
> first and doesn't know if the server supports HTTP2 is to send an OPTIONS
> request in front of the POST. Either the upgrade already works for the
> OPTIONS request or it is then known the server will only support HTTP/1.1.
>
>
In nghttp2 project, ​nghttp client does this approach: Use OPTIONS with
POST for h2c upgrade.
nghttpx proxy only performs HTTP/2 upgrade if request has no request body,
which I think has some popularity in this thread.  The reason why we chose
this approach is... well we just defer the complicated effort to the
future, but in retrospect, I think it is a good compromise for simplicity.

​Best regards,
Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa​