IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt

Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Tue, 01 November 2016 17:29 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 AAC7A12958D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.498 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=microsoft.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 YoQZ0zq6TA2C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:29:48 -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 4FBAA129508 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c1coe-0002cT-6j for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:25:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:25:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c1coe-0002cT-6j@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 <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1c1coY-0002aU-49 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:25:34 +0000
Received: from mail-dm3nam03on0136.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([104.47.41.136] helo=NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1c1coR-0000zI-Ob for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:25:28 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Xx7Pd4egvH605qgR6VjO8z5iGFCyrdGF6X1jE12sv2g=; b=LMYMus89KWyxXP2I56ilink8yvTMSF+E3BBGOlxQ3ANIeemBHFxsnaNIoeBJ8bBldLKnq+9nQQYIlG0AFQ6GGZOaJ4Xrek8UIpVAn8Fsh7pSEI0u19HYSQSYH7RAyR+DqpYy625lmOgIV3DvfRDPnxfpQthNI97lFH6eweVKww0=
Received: from BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.173.144.15) by BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.173.144.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.693.12; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:24:59 +0000
Received: from BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.144.15]) by BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.144.15]) with mapi id 15.01.0693.009; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:24:59 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHSNAp4ZoWCD/Nru0iM5zmdoVgkEaDDyKgAgACYr1A=
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:24:59 +0000
Message-ID: <BN6PR03MB27088EF1361F6ED49A3E378C87A10@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <147792294052.32397.15544665152412530374.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CANatvzwm_T-HW0yT1MAWEUrfw5OAVkmAZe890575qg8HuU9Z_Q@mail.gmail.com> <86447165-100C-407D-8512-A32F93B11BBA@lukasa.co.uk> <CANatvzzRvbEjy4AqDHeRtQfcJX0Ls14qJf0qv0QWZBMMd-HRnQ@mail.gmail.com> <5f155947-e74c-0761-b5d4-64f8aabec846@gmx.de> <F2EE2E10-9129-47D4-8C6E-BEE079503F34@lukasa.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <F2EE2E10-9129-47D4-8C6E-BEE079503F34@lukasa.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8:8::390]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 548ad52e-b3b1-4fc5-212c-08d4027c01d8
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BN6PR03MB2708; 7:TKPBtgS8h5RNPWSjHGxXD/LjvY1a2HuwYXjkvTDrbgyVrgT1mvcriMO8oPciX+FP2i181XgQhml2BQgRBnw/ssgE0YLr/moowZfiazRdpf+AxNjYhW1pDbt9pvGCJkVrS57OfxGZuyDOf9HLzyZV9QoqMH4ljsxmLiLikZJfhMHvdujzGsciSHSPvFR1Js2mat6dGk2ebFXet3JNCll4t78TYcdV4jH2J0RiI27hk20kPl5MWLADtccX1vKmpiW1PL0BWKAqV4kKpXgAQuiohZJtNP9+gHR6dZO3R1YSqq+uHa6470Fkznj+PnCMK54SWVU4ejNbfBv2pCqByIpkX0a+nNCxjXDPcKwU8WOwyMHCI3+05DgWCrdpYTlIbbfL
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN6PR03MB2708;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR03MB270813833B95CDC1AC2848F287A10@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(26323138287068);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(6040176)(6045074)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038)(6046074)(6072074); SRVR:BN6PR03MB2708; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BN6PR03MB2708;
x-forefront-prvs: 01136D2D90
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(24454002)(377454003)(189002)(13464003)(199003)(377424004)(3280700002)(33656002)(11100500001)(3660700001)(2900100001)(8936002)(106116001)(102836003)(6116002)(92566002)(230783001)(105586002)(106356001)(99286002)(586003)(8990500004)(10290500002)(86612001)(86362001)(10400500002)(5005710100001)(77096005)(10090500001)(189998001)(5002640100001)(97736004)(5001770100001)(19580405001)(2950100002)(19580395003)(7696004)(50986999)(9686002)(68736007)(54356999)(76176999)(101416001)(93886004)(122556002)(5660300001)(76576001)(81166006)(345774005)(74316002)(81156014)(8676002)(87936001)(2906002)(15650500001)(4326007)(8666005)(7846002)(7736002)(305945005)(7059030); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR03MB2708; H:BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Nov 2016 17:24:59.5133 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR03MB2708
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=104.47.41.136; envelope-from=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com; helo=NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.451, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c1coR-0000zI-Ob ba868714a5d2c92f972e6ae81cc96a43
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/BN6PR03MB27088EF1361F6ED49A3E378C87A10@BN6PR03MB2708.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32790
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>

FWIW, our implementation should already ignore this response and process the final status code correctly.  If you have a public endpoint that returns a hint, we can all do a quick field test.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cory Benfield [mailto:cory@lukasa.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 1:17 AM
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>; HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt


> On 1 Nov 2016, at 06:32, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> On 2016-11-01 02:32, Kazuho Oku wrote:
>> Cory, Julian, thank you for looking into the I-D.
>> 
>> Thank you for looking into the existing implementations using Python.
>> Your research makes it evident that some kind of negotiation is 
>> mandatory if we are going to use 103 on the public Internet.
> 
> Having to negotiate it makes me sad.

I’m right there with you Julian. The 1XX response category gets to be another marker pointing us to the lesson the IETF has been learning for the past decade or so: extension points on a specification that no-one uses rust over time and become unusable.

In this case, I think the 1XX problem is more oversight than anything else. The problems in all these cases are tractable, and can be fairly easily fixed. It’s just that someone needs to spend that time.

>> For HTTP/2, my tendency leans toward using HTTP headers rather than 
>> having its own way of negotiation, considering the fact that the 
>> information transferred using Early Hints could be considered 
>> end-to-end rather than hop-by-hop, and also that we can expect HPACK 
>> to compress Accept-EH header efficiently.
> 
> For HTTP/2, I think we should push stronger to fix the code and not negotiate at all.

So for HTTP/2 the state of play is different. There are far fewer implementations, and those that exist are better and more actively developed. I’m happy to say for h2 that we don’t require negotiation of the extension.

Cory

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email