IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Mon, 10 January 2011 01:15 UTC

Return-Path: <fielding@gbiv.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 33DB23A686D for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:15:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.128
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.128 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.529, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 NcWCLA6O7Z+C for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbhh.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.177]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788F23A6868 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98AA5350078; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:17:50 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gbiv.com; h=subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to; q=dns; s=gbiv.com; b=TObTURDFsYr3XjLG HtGiPLVpbvHvdiwLb/gY2+zmC2US3rzvnPGB5MUHP0rPRvWTGsRTxv0W295B5HMT 2yRSt6o/lHQCkOrWwoTkkjD90FlL7MxbLZXaQYuyUxN/1TXr/+eOJevJ6uudA2oj PsNGsoRpn/xmyFA5KUD7aM0dszY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=VauROHMRKSYMvBZn1B4OxuDM8WQ=; b=c7ibLIthG3qzZvrCqZxb0zuzzR++ ptLlPQ2my1asXWpOo4GuvJuD70/OFAdJHQqrqxflIJ8mu8gAlO34RXtsbijIpfFB B0CQk6S5l9hta6vKVqTbgYaC2Ar9vA87RC4L9z0y5IIZR9GN6clxEvW2wPqMpWlh zB6lbTfgv+9ou9o=
Received: from [192.168.1.84] (99-21-208-82.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net [99.21.208.82]) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 76BFF350072; Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:17:50 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D2A592B.3000404@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 17:17:59 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <02F6DC8B-7BFE-4EAA-B91A-7DBB3CD73A7E@gbiv.com>
References: <AANLkTim2VGfH2FiJ4iH85wYiuXNKQ1Arh1C1Kg4M58Fs@mail.gmail.com> <20110109224228.GU5743@1wt.eu> <AANLkTimE-qOhYXO35nBqRWp9ipF-pk_CsO-YrotAjYqX@mail.gmail.com> <20110109230229.GX5743@1wt.eu> <0311EE7A-4A32-4885-BC87-1541AA70A18B@apple.com> <AANLkTinMo8xqhkB08bY8no1y5-7+7isCm97or6icH=r5@mail.gmail.com> <4D2A4738.2000500@gmx.de> <A76D8525-91F2-43E7-96E9-778113FB128C@gbiv.com> <4D2A592B.3000404@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: Hybi <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] OPTIONS (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: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:15:39 -0000

On Jan 9, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> For simplicity, the best *server* side choice IMHO is to treat Upgrade the same way for a given URI, no matter what what request method was.

No, the value of upgrade is similar to conditional GETs:
asking for an optional improvement to the protocol without
costing an extra round trip.  The common case is a normal
GET request, and the server responds to that GET request
as its first message after the protocol is upgraded,
without any further bits needed from the client.

IOW, waka (or some future HTTP/2.0) can be bootstrapped
at near-zero cost with Upgrade because waka knows how
to respond to the semantics of GET.  The same applies to
any other valid HTTP method -- the server must provide a
valid answer to that request, in the syntax of the new
protocol, after the 101 is sent (see 2616 sec 14.42).

....Roy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email