Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)
Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Tue, 23 April 2013 17:20 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 5710721F9667 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.192
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.192 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.407, 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 EpHh-R2I8dtJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7E421F9659 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UUgsd-0006t2-BD for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:19:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:19:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UUgsd-0006t2-BD@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UUgsZ-0006sE-L2 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:19:43 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UUgsY-0007Et-Ck for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:19:43 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r3NHJHag014542; Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:19:17 +0200
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:19:17 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130423171917.GI11448@1wt.eu>
References: <20130420071042.GI26517@1wt.eu> <77849350-125C-4F36-8D78-0FF86DA0044E@mnot.net> <20130420071736.GK26517@1wt.eu> <BA1DBB8B-2E4D-49F5-AE98-F089A568BD4E@mnot.net> <20130423081209.GH8496@1wt.eu> <7B3A3DD8-BB24-4E09-831B-D27416B31622@mnot.net> <CAP+FsNe_xGvZSveE4hW0YmSTPvcbVytqtN5NX1wu2TmMH9w5QA@mail.gmail.com> <00F2FE82-F9A7-40AD-B829-6D82C16A75A4@mnot.net> <CAP+FsNe9UNY2Fj+fUA9M8DppmMr0NQ5VYsVCdVi0dddqT4VwBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYgTTF+Tzo6qsOox6VOY6DzbPr4bigxoJiAqA01ScEgJkA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYgTTF+Tzo6qsOox6VOY6DzbPr4bigxoJiAqA01ScEgJkA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.109, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UUgsY-0007Et-Ck 232c5aae7c7d67dd989eb7429e6e9312
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130423171917.GI11448@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17508
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 Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:16:25AM -0700, William Chan (?????????) wrote: > I think adding the relative preference semantic is good. > > I have to confess I was not aware of using Upgrade as a response header > outside of a 101 or 426 response. This indeed sounds very similar to > Alternate-Protocol. Is anyone actually using this in practice? I don't think so, since Upgrade really started to be used with WebSocket. However RFC2817 clearly mentions this possibility without speaking about ordering, just about combinations. Willy
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Willy Tarreau
- p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Willy Tarreau
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Willy Tarreau
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Roberto Peon
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Roberto Peon
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Willy Tarreau
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Willy Tarreau
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Salvatore Loreto
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Peter Occil
- Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham
- Re: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Peter Occil
- Re: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Peter Occil
- Re: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Mark Nottingham