IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] #1: HTTP Compliance

Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com> Wed, 21 July 2010 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <fenix@google.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 5BDB03A6359 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 hIFfh8Qz49cE for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 308A03A6814 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.5]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o6LFMENI029259 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:22:14 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1279725734; bh=R+LSQiZ+OVWG9kxoSVMdnl/MRj8=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=lzONuf1kOxP2gGhAbTx2wE7apeAiQ74Iuqbr24eyUi7b4K+8bIYL6hliIW9i+yKUN 2zD3H/RqmYKyt3/PfrGsg==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=xSwAyCLYW+ftZTD6xtrwaRI+/kfxRoNX0GoeCxS58IZKC3SfkKGz8cTaEG1ElmqlY Ch6xgKXxJm69PSjQLOHUA==
Received: from yxn35 (yxn35.prod.google.com [10.190.4.99]) by hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o6LFLtu5011757 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:22:13 -0700
Received: by yxn35 with SMTP id 35so2082108yxn.23 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.175.17 with SMTP id x17mr1910510ybe.300.1279725731275; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.59.4 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:22:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20100721151531.GA2990@1wt.eu>
References: <15307.1274106895.116423@Sputnik> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1005172259030.22838@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <20100518003753.GP20356@shareable.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1005180229430.22838@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <20100518121245.GR20356@shareable.org> <AANLkTiniCjBwm5T59as8jByM5xDhPMrea-GqZFpWPAVS@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1005182105360.22838@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <20100519013238.GB2318@shareable.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007210108300.7242@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <AANLkTik5NXkKhV+d9skXpYa_afSwthmdf=LrTbXkzwRQ@mail.gmail.com> <20100721151531.GA2990@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:22:11 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikjbPObJEObZWceYuC1g0bYTg+8-5eQJBWKjBr=@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00151748dc8e9f83f0048be75d82"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] #1: HTTP Compliance
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: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:22:00 -0000

I believe Mike quoted numbers in an earlier thread.

Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, I'm talking about the
UPGRADE feature of HTTP generically, and not as it applies to the current
draft Websocket spec.
-=R

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 07:54:14AM -0700, Roberto Peon wrote:
> > > (By extension, I think the Upgrade mechanism in HTTP isn't a
> particularly
> > > good idea. The number of times the mechanism has been used to great
> > > success on the Web somewhat supports my position on this, I think.)
> > >
> >
> > The UPGRADE mechanism was a fine idea. Poor transparent proxy
> > implementations have killed its effectiveness.
>
> Do we have reports of failures due to transparent proxies ? As of now,
> the only failure I'm aware of is due to the unadvertised bytes which
> is not compatible with HTTP.
>
> Willy
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email