Re: Re: Quick review for draft-svirid-websocket2-over-http2 (Was: Re: Draft HTTPbis Agenda For Seoul IETF 97)

Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> Thu, 20 October 2016 19:46 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 73FD11296A6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.332
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 paoT47C3DW6g for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:46:05 -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 D0A0212966C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bxJDg-0003d9-7o for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:41:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:41:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bxJDg-0003d9-7o@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi>) id 1bxJDd-0003cV-DR for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:41:37 +0000
Received: from smtpvgate.fmi.fi ([193.166.223.36]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi>) id 1bxJDa-0006l8-3p for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 19:41:36 +0000
Received: from basaari.fmi.fi (basaari.fmi.fi [193.166.211.14]) (envelope-from hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi) by smtpVgate.fmi.fi (8.13.8/8.13.8/smtpgate-20161014/smtpVgate) with ESMTP id u9KJf312014177 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:41:03 +0300
Received: from shell.siilo.fmi.fi by basaari.fmi.fi with ESMTP id u9KJf34b014781 ; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:41:03 +0300
Received: from shell.siilo.fmi.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by shell.siilo.fmi.fi with ESMTP id u9KJf3NG013273 ; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:41:03 +0300
Received: by shell.siilo.fmi.fi id u9KJf348013272; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:41:03 +0300
Message-Id: <201610201941.u9KJf348013272@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
In-Reply-To: <CAG-EYCjJB4MAiqDiogxLTyNpCtWcCH68T3sfKfjWNi6W=39R2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANatvzx0+6P8+SifWY=4uFJUZg5mTKsjEeQgn2=w+huPEa9kyQ@mail.gmail.com> <20161020093357.AB25113BFC@welho-filter2.welho.com> <CAG-EYCjJB4MAiqDiogxLTyNpCtWcCH68T3sfKfjWNi6W=39R2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:41:03 +0300 (EEST)
Sender: hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi
From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
CC: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
X-Mailer: ELM [version ME+ 2.5 PLalpha42]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Filter: smtpVgate.fmi.fi: 3 received headers rewritten with id 20161020/44768/01
X-Filter: smtpVgate.fmi.fi: ID 44768/01, 1 parts scanned for known viruses
X-Filter: basaari.fmi.fi: ID 143405/01, 1 parts scanned for known viruses
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (smtpVgate.fmi.fi [193.166.223.36]); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 22:41:04 +0300 (EEST)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=193.166.223.36; envelope-from=hurtta@siilo.fmi.fi; helo=smtpVgate.fmi.fi
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.342, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.316, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bxJDa-0006l8-3p 3d858da0effe653d34ee12df6a54e8e3
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Re: Quick review for draft-svirid-websocket2-over-http2 (Was: Re: Draft HTTPbis Agenda For Seoul IETF 97)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/201610201941.u9KJf348013272@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32659
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>

Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>om>: (Thu Oct 20 22:17:49 2016)
> >  4.3.1.  GET
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-4.3.1
> >
> > |   A payload within a GET request message has no defined semantics;
> > |   sending a payload body on a GET request might cause some existing
> > |   implementations to reject the request.
> > |
> > |   The response to a GET request is cacheable; a cache MAY use it to
> > |   satisfy subsequent GET and HEAD requests unless otherwise indicated
> > |   by the Cache-Control header field (Section 5.2 of [RFC7234]).
> 
> > Changing of scheme does not change semantic of methods.
> 
> It seems that sending a Cache-Control header to indicate no caching would
> work then?

Semantic still does not match.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-4.3.1

| 4.3.1.  GET
| 
|    The GET method requests transfer of a current selected representation
|    for the target resource.  


RFC 6455 also used GET -method, but it was changing protocol because of Upgrade.

1.3.  Opening Handshake
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6455#section-1.3

|        GET /chat HTTP/1.1
|        Host: server.example.com
|        Upgrade: websocket
|        Connection: Upgrade


> I thought that a middlebox cannot cache ANYTHING unless the response
> contains headers to allow caching.
> It seems the opposite, anything can be cached unless strictly told not to.

4.2.3.  Cacheable Methods
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-4.2.3

|   Request methods can be defined as "cacheable" to indicate that
|   responses to them are allowed to be stored for future reuse; for
|   specific requirements see [RFC7234].  In general, safe methods that
|   do not depend on a current or authoritative response are defined as
|   cacheable; this specification defines GET, HEAD, and POST as
|   cacheable, although the overwhelming majority of cache
|   implementations only support GET and HEAD.

/ Kari Hurtta