Re: HTTP/2 Upgrade with content?

Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de> Fri, 13 March 2015 14:39 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 322BA1A01D6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 7Q5nEdm4PCkb for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:39:47 -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 A94681A8998 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YWQhP-0000Rw-SB for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:36:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:36:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YWQhP-0000Rw-SB@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <roland@zinks.de>) id 1YWQhI-0000RA-PL for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:36:20 +0000
Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.163]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <roland@zinks.de>) id 1YWQhD-0003M5-AC for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:36:20 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1426257352; l=1125; s=domk; d=zinks.de; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References: Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date; bh=UaKh1x8Fb+qkNQhP374RDtPb3umpyB1CH6UzejRMakY=; b=uUzlPMB7v8XjqTe1b6FHbEePqp0Z7aeq+SE/RRpIea5ipGpAb6mTknvUcpfECWB9clq R+gQz2DUN5M4CHHNEIq1vLr60SYe5tD672FQADd9c8s2Vrh+aZ8A4KVHMXOrQs82uNJ+h g2RBASmQEC4u40jGJzLZPVPDx17ShNHbGJY=
X-RZG-AUTH: :PmMIdE6sW+WWP9q/oR3Lt+I+9KAK33vRJaCwLQNJU2mlIkBC0t1G+0bSVECAiLyFx3W0GLr2tLcx+cZTjrrsJcjN
X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00
Received: from [IPv6:2001:4dd0:ff67:0:407c:43d9:41f8:705] ([2001:4dd0:ff67:0:407c:43d9:41f8:705]) by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 37.4 AUTH) with ESMTPSA id a02f3er2DEZq5cw (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:35:52 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5502F5C7.8030604@zinks.de>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:35:51 +0100
From: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <B6CAD842-64A1-4D7B-839C-852AF5AAD221@greenbytes.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: none client-ip=81.169.146.163; envelope-from=roland@zinks.de; helo=mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.446, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YWQhD-0003M5-AC 83e5d378b478bedb34f422965005c8ca
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP/2 Upgrade with content?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5502F5C7.8030604@zinks.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28964
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 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.

Roland