[hybi] HELLO frames (was Re: It's time to ship)

Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> Sun, 09 January 2011 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mjs@apple.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A562A28C0D7 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:07:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lOIJjRVY0qvD for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:07:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out3.apple.com (mail-out3.apple.com [17.254.13.22]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501BC3A6835 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:07:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6C1C5EC9FF for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:10:10 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 1180711d-b7c30ae0000055b4-00-4d2a4052b439
Received: from elliott.apple.com (elliott.apple.com [17.151.62.13]) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 25.D3.21940.2504A2D4; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 15:10:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_3eE6kIbJB8Q1pmJQvMOI2Q)"
Received: from [10.0.1.14] ([24.6.209.6]) by elliott.apple.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0LES00KUO30XC240@elliott.apple.com> for hybi@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:10:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <20110109230229.GX5743@1wt.eu>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:10:09 -0800
Message-id: <6F2780F7-D603-46D6-B737-8B085AF32B2C@apple.com>
References: <AANLkTim2VGfH2FiJ4iH85wYiuXNKQ1Arh1C1Kg4M58Fs@mail.gmail.com> <20110109224228.GU5743@1wt.eu> <AANLkTimE-qOhYXO35nBqRWp9ipF-pk_CsO-YrotAjYqX@mail.gmail.com> <20110109230229.GX5743@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: [hybi] HELLO frames (was Re: It's time to ship)
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 23:07:59 -0000

On Jan 9, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 02:49:10PM -0800, Adam Barth wrote:
> 
>>>  - Greg proposed to replace the MORE bit with a FIN bit so that the first
>>>    hello frame from the server starts with a high bit set, thus ensuring
>>>    that we can break the connection on non-HTTP compliant intermediaries
>>>    which would expect a second response after the 101.
>> 
>> The protocol is good enough without this change.  The masking has us
>> covered here.
> 
> No, I'm talking about the ability to ensure that a non-compliant intermediary
> will fail early instead of remaining stuck waiting for the server to talk.
> That once one of Hixie's major concerns and one of the reasons for the Hello
> frames suggestion.

Is there any evidence that either client-->server or sever-->client HELLO frames would reduce the rate of apparent successful connections that later fail in real-world deployment? If so, we can consider adding them on their own merits.

Regards,
Maciej