Re: HTTP Request+Response issues

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 24 April 2013 18:03 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 69D5521F8E5F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.607, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_NEED_REPLY=0.784]
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 yWkVs-P04+Q3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 324DD21F89DB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UV426-0002Lj-3G for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:03:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:03:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UV426-0002Lj-3G@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UV421-0002L3-SV for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:03:01 +0000
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com ([209.85.217.172]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UV41x-0000oZ-AP for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:03:01 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id u10so2047243lbi.17 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pIUTzT+Q73xPcXNecAkAiBLXT1Ij8tKuKtThTF8frqw=; b=u2g4Uy74xlT8/K7+a3xclmIfPRrG7rk4Dq4QkajQpOzHL/x9Q26t9OZqRRonQBjcx7 JHq9OrIbm+GEmOKz9ErWumoTq3Ad0F8JErcFmC4W6SKGeD/8geHBmRwbh6glQNbMJUgk ky9nbPRN0Uzjlo3LkVay2nEBewIoyvayJIId7ivT2QCGmOyl3GUatpqmHLTboHROL6Kk RItXy01bcT588ZPK0uhOGlYC5W1cvHqdL1sufI3KXXCV6EE0+9U4CqhOnf73cl0cPgjf /OQPlYxQLU03WXe/Jt0CbPFFogl/bF10QSvNvT0wpmd/zhT/vGWpM6Y750HvjwfqsrfN IwVw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.140.1 with SMTP id rc1mr18221943lbb.43.1366826550703; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.151.171 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbebepmG=zVnj+X1DGy-4d8p7U15+vTjyba5cOYLyedKog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbebepmG=zVnj+X1DGy-4d8p7U15+vTjyba5cOYLyedKog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:02:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWWmJest8GLdrt=wkM4-BWgvCvWX68S_dM-1TChANkrtA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.217.172; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f172.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.683, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UV41x-0000oZ-AP 6b206634ca88d0e7d85612d89b1ad398
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP Request+Response issues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnWWmJest8GLdrt=wkM4-BWgvCvWX68S_dM-1TChANkrtA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17549
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 think that this is right.  You ultimately have to reach the
conclusion that responses are in the same stream as the request, but
that should be express, not implied.

James, can you create an editorial issue in the github repo?  We (the
editors) will get to it when we can.

On 24 April 2013 09:58, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>; wrote:
> Reading through the current draft, unless I missed it, it needs to be
> clarified that HTTP request and responses MUST be sent within the same
> stream unless we specifically want to allow responses to be sent in a
> different stream than the request.
>
> For instance:
>
> Request:
>   Stream-ID: 1
>   :method: get
>
> Response:  (server uses the same stream)
>   Stream-ID: 1
>   :status: 200
>
> OR...
>
> Request:
>   Stream-ID: 1
>   :method: get
>
> Response: (server uses a different stream)
>   Stream-ID: 2
>   :status: 200
>
> Currently, it appears that this is an unspoken assumption in the spec
> text that needs to be called out explicitly. Or, if it's already
> there, it needs to be made more visible.
>
> - James
>