[hybi] Proposal: HTTP upgrade process

Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> Mon, 16 August 2010 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@webtide.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 69AAA3A68F1 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.756
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.221, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 QLzbsu8HIe7Y for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2B43A6902 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm18 with SMTP id 18so3143345fxm.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.103.194 with SMTP id l2mr4599338fao.6.1281921821772; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.57.12 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:23:41 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=aR8+LgcoXDVhuu-HC2k3TB6YP2WcXEo8yC1Jz@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
To: hybi@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: [hybi] Proposal: HTTP upgrade process
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: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 01:23:07 -0000

All,

there has been a lot of posting about the -76/-00 style handshake,
it's HTTP compliance issues, it's fast fail (or otherwise)
characteristics, it security features etc.    I don't think any of the
conversations have been very productive nor is there any apparent
convergence on a solution.

I think the reason for his is that we are starting with a solutions
(the 8 random bytes etc.) and trying to reverse engineer the
requirements for it and a retrospective consensus for it's inclusion
into the draft. Thus I would like to propose  that we re-start
consideration of the handshake with the -75 style handshake and try to
move forward from there by identifying problems/requirements,
discussing solutions and then applying the consensus solution to move
forward.

Instead of contributors having to make the case of why the random
8-bytes etc. should be excluded from the protocol, those that support
random bytes should clearly make the case for their inclusion.   We
need to identify the issues with a simple upgrade request, and then
discuss various solutions as to how to address these - it may be that
the random 8 bytes solution is the best solution, but if so, then
there can be no harm in conducting a process that verifies this is the
case.

Note that I'm not saying that we should immediately publish a -01
draft with the handshake reverted, as I think it would be sufficient
for us just to restart our discussions from that simpler base (but I
would not object to a reset -01 draft either).


regards