Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)
"Peter Occil" <poccil14@gmail.com> Wed, 15 May 2013 01:19 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 69F0621F8717 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2013 18:19:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 eDkC59p0TzsH for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2013 18:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C969A21F86F7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2013 18:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UcQLj-0004Dc-Qi for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 15 May 2013 01:17:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 01:17:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UcQLj-0004Dc-Qi@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <poccil14@gmail.com>) id 1UcQLX-0004BG-H4 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 15 May 2013 01:17:35 +0000
Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com ([209.85.220.173]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <poccil14@gmail.com>) id 1UcQLW-0001cB-QA for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 15 May 2013 01:17:35 +0000
Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id ht10so1347328vcb.18 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 14 May 2013 18:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject :date:mime-version:content-type:x-priority:x-msmail-priority :importance:x-mailer:x-mimeole; bh=L0o+STEeyDGsi/AFh7YtABmvdyXJSy7c4dzcry/1s1A=; b=yrhOjmfapavQewi5IKSTcxJ50AE64/zaJWmgZVfuw8ao/RLtOioyytq4U0pg9UZ2r3 iqW38/cx5eSM55oEI25ZDGpVZBQxv3wQGjAAHet7iMi4ZylXG3puSPBcOprOGxMS3L14 Pk5NdBTAfTBLUztrclkWe8oEl+06BL2v6Nj6aSlLI6di8WouULw/MhSu81LggaSKsqIn gS7VGnQCb6W0+obndb3su2E/Odkpd43nf60W56nMH+Ty3LSnsXeoAG5+bNwT6bC/4KSz U6OxIXDo977zlany5sg5jTeaQG8BJKrBXxqgcZI7/eFtNuCZhWOI5YXnmEv5qOAS5TjI qirA==
X-Received: by 10.52.25.101 with SMTP id b5mr19485734vdg.115.1368580629148; Tue, 14 May 2013 18:17:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PeterPC (c-76-119-210-197.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [76.119.210.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s14sm812021vdg.6.2013.05.14.18.17.07 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 14 May 2013 18:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <77A7C7D824C7440AA937222E970BD96A@PeterPC>
From: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
To: mnot@mnot.net
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <F786D0A4-F4BD-4A85-8078-F6BBCABA32AC@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <F786D0A4-F4BD-4A85-8078-F6BBCABA32AC@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 21:17:02 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0027_01CE50E8.609E1290"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.173; envelope-from=poccil14@gmail.com; helo=mail-vc0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.134, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UcQLW-0001cB-QA 74d768df1ed2efeff7bd0cb9c33b5126
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/77A7C7D824C7440AA937222E970BD96A@PeterPC>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17997
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>
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
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Willy Tarreau
- p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Willy Tarreau
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Willy Tarreau
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Roberto Peon
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Roberto Peon
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Willy Tarreau
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Willy Tarreau
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Salvatore Loreto
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Peter Occil
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Peter Occil
- Re: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Peter Occil
- Re: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham