Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow
"Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Wed, 17 April 2013 22:37 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 2C24D21E80E4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 I6RKfu+yorim for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F7C21E80E1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1USayf-0007GV-8C for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:37:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:37:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1USayf-0007GV-8C@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1USayc-0007Fl-3E for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:37:18 +0000
Received: from smtp.qbik.com ([210.55.214.35]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1USayb-0003iq-0C for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:37:18 +0000
Received: From [192.168.0.10] (unverified [192.168.0.10]) by SMTP Server [192.168.0.1] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v8.0.0 (Build 3531)) with SMTP id <0019655158@smtp.qbik.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 10:36:54 +1200
From: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, Ilya Grigorik <ilya@igvita.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:36:54 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVP_4BCwiUd9ZpVzr8WLJjxqOkd82WK8yncseO8fRV_zA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <em221a6930-d6e1-47ea-b735-5f9177f9ddf1@bombed>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/5.0.17595.0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=210.55.214.35; envelope-from=adrien@qbik.com; helo=smtp.qbik.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.021, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.556, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1USayb-0003iq-0C b6b04462f69ffa776ff14fc2352c8d00
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/em221a6930-d6e1-47ea-b735-5f9177f9ddf1@bombed>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17312
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>
Hi ------ Original Message ------ From: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Cc: "Gabriel Montenegro" <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>; "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>; "Ilari Liusvaara" <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>; "Ilya Grigorik" <ilya@igvita.com>; "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Sent: 18/04/2013 10:11:06 a.m. Subject: Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow >I think that you either send the session header immediately after the >first request (the Upgrade) and risk having it swalled, that could do nasty things if the server is only 1.1 >or you send it >immediately before the next (HTTP/2.0) request. In either case, you >don't incur an RTT delay. next request may not exist. Adrien > >If you thought that the server would wait for the client session >header before sending its SETTINGS, then I don't think that was every >the intention (the recent edits from Gabriel fix that problem, I >hope). That would add an RTT and we don't want that. > >On 17 April 2013 15:07, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: >> >> my main concern is what does a forward proxy do. >> >> the client may choose to maintain a database of known http2 capable >>servers. >> This may be too much of a burden for the proxy. >> >> Discovery at the proxy could be a bit of a burden as well. >> >> A proxy offering 2.0 support to 2.0 clients but still having to talk >>to the >> great unwashed internet has quite a dilemma. The safe/lazy/whatever >>option >> for the proxy may be to always use the Upgrade option. Adding a RTT >>in this >> case will be seen by clients/customers as a performance degradation >>in many >> cases. >> >> Or maybe I've not thought this through properly. >> >> >> Adrien >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> >> To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> >> Cc: "Gabriel Montenegro" <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>; "Mark >> Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>; "Ilari Liusvaara" >> <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>; "Ilya Grigorik" <ilya@igvita.com>; >> "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> >> Sent: 18/04/2013 10:00:47 a.m. >> Subject: Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow >>> >>> So you intend to make client SETTINGS available to the server prior >>>to >>> the server commencing transmission. This is the essence of what >>> Gabriel intends with his known state proposal. He is concerned by >>>the >>> asymmetry of the exchange when Upgrade is involved (as opposed to >>>the >>> TLS session startup). You should talk to Gabriel. >>> >>> On 17 April 2013 14:56, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I think it would need to go in as a header. Maybe even as an >>>>attribute >>>> to >>>> the Upgrade? Not sure if that supports such things. E.g. >>>> >>>> GET /bob.txt HTTP/1.1 >>>> Host: somewhere.co.nz >>>> Upgrade: HTTP/2.0 ; session=[......] >>>> >>>> so that the server can respond with the resource in any case. >>>> >>>> Adding a RTT to all HTTP 2.0 connections I thought had been >>>>decided was >>>> a >>>> non-starter. Or compared to TLS setup phase + NPN maybe it's no >>>>worse. >>>> >>>> >>>> Adrien >>>> >>>> >>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>> From: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> >>>> To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> >>>> Cc: "Gabriel Montenegro" <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>; "Mark >>>> Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>; "Ilari Liusvaara" >>>> <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>; "Ilya Grigorik" <ilya@igvita.com>; >>>> "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> >>>> Sent: 18/04/2013 9:51:47 a.m. >>>> Subject: Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's possible that the client could pipeline the session header, >>>>>but >>>>> >>>>> that does stand a chance of being subsumed into the initial >>>>>request. >>>>> I expect packet-based hacks. >>>>> >>>>> On 17 April 2013 14:42, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> >>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My understanding was that we would not be sacrificing the first >>>>>> request >>>>>> due >>>>>> to a requirement to upgrade. >>>>>> >>>>>> In order for the server to send an actual response, if it needs >>>>>>the >>>>>> client >>>>>> session header, this should be sent in the initial request >>>>>>which >>>>>> includes >>>>>> the upgrade. >>>>>> >>>>>> Otherwise we just added a RTT >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Adrien >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------ Original Message ------ >>>>>> From: "Gabriel Montenegro" <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com> >>>>>> To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> >>>>>> Cc: "Ilari Liusvaara" <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>; "Ilya >>>>>>Grigorik" >>>>>> <ilya@igvita.com>; "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" >>>>>><ietf-http-wg@w3.org> >>>>>> Sent: 18/04/2013 5:02:01 a.m. >>>>>> Subject: RE: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personally, I'm not thrilled with how the server session >>>>>>>>header is >>>>>>>> conflated >>>>>>>> with a SETTINGS frame... if we're going to require that the >>>>>>>>server >>>>>>>> send >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> SETTINGS frame first (which is fine), let's just come out >>>>>>>>and say >>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>> rather >>>>>>>> than making it a side effect of requiring a (largely >>>>>>>>fictional) >>>>>>>> server >>>>>>>> session >>>>>>>> header. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The spec already says that in section 3.8.4 that a SETTINGS >>>>>>>frame >>>>>>> MUST >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> the first frame sent by either party in a new session. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So that part is fine. If we wish to say that a server has no >>>>>>>session >>>>>>> header, that would be fine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for " As proposed by Gabriel, SETTINGS (or equivalent) >>>>>>> would/could >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> carried in the headers in the UPGRADE request." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the record, I did not say that in the Upgrade scenario the >>>>>>> client >>>>>>> session header is sent in HTTP/1.1 along with the Upgrade >>>>>>>request. >>>>>>> My >>>>>>> understanding is that the Upgrade request goes without the >>>>>>>client >>>>>>> session >>>>>>> header. As we have discussed in Orlando, we could add some >>>>>>>HTTP/1.1 >>>>>>> headers >>>>>>> to address the known state by conveying *some* of the settings >>>>>>>(only >>>>>>> those >>>>>>> absolutely necessary to achieve known initial state). But >>>>>>>that's a >>>>>>> separate >>>>>>> proposal/discussion from this thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At any rate, the server sends back the 101, and begins its >>>>>>>HTTP/2.0 >>>>>>> traffic by sending its SETTINGS frame and its response frames, >>>>>>>and >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> client upon receiving the 101, and only then, begins sending >>>>>>> HTTP/2.0 >>>>>>> traffic starting with its client session header (which >>>>>>>includes the >>>>>>> magic >>>>>>> sequence and the client SETTINGS frame). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>
- HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Ilya Grigorik
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Ilya Grigorik
- RE: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Gabriel Montenegro
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Ilya Grigorik
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Amos Jeffries
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Willy Tarreau
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Roberto Peon
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Mark Nottingham
- RE: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Gabriel Montenegro
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Martin Thomson
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Martin Thomson
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Martin Thomson
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Martin Thomson
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Adrien W. de Croy
- RE: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Gabriel Montenegro
- Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow Adrien W. de Croy