Re: [hybi] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets-01.txt

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

2017-11-10 15:14 GMT+09:00 Kari Hurtta <[e-mail]>:
>> Therefore the explicit tunneling mechanism is
>> necessary to signal to proxies/frameworks that a full-duplex byte-stream is
>> being tunneled as a http/2 stream.
>
>>> Request:
>>>   :method: GET
>>>   :scheme: https
>>>   :authority: server.example.com
>>>   :path: /chat
>>>   :upgrade: websocket
>
> 8.1.2.1.  Pseudo-Header Fields
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-8.1.2.1
>
> states
>
> --------
>
>    Pseudo-header fields are only valid in the context in which they are
>    defined.  Pseudo-header fields defined for requests MUST NOT appear
>    in responses; pseudo-header fields defined for responses MUST NOT
>    appear in requests.  Pseudo-header fields MUST NOT appear in
>    trailers.  Endpoints MUST treat a request or response that contains
>    undefined or invalid pseudo-header fields as malformed
>    (Section 8.1.2.6).
>
> --------
>
> Then that ":upgrade" works as explicit tunneling mechanism, IF you can trust
> that response is treated as mailformed (stream error of type PROTOCOL_ERROR)
> when proxies/frameworks does not subscribe that tunneling mechanism.
>
> Can you trust that?

Note that we would be doing negotiation beforehand using a SETTINGS
parameter. Otherwise, a client cannot send a request with `:upgrade:`
pseudo header.

I believe that a successful negotiation would be sufficient to
guarantee that the `:upgrade:` response header will be recognized as a
signal (or a 101 status code as a signal).

>
> / Kari Hurtta
>



-- 
Kazuho Oku