Re: [hybi] Proposal: HTTP upgrade process

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Mon, 16 August 2010 06:08 UTC

Return-Path: <w@1wt.eu>
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 C55173A6819 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.793
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.793 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.750, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_IS_SMALL6=0.556]
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 eMEuzYo+bvTF for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1wt.eu (1wt.eu [62.212.114.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 990EB3A6821 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o7G696Eo031090; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:09:06 +0200
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:09:05 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
Message-ID: <20100816060905.GQ27614@1wt.eu>
References: <AANLkTi=aR8+LgcoXDVhuu-HC2k3TB6YP2WcXEo8yC1Jz@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=aR8+LgcoXDVhuu-HC2k3TB6YP2WcXEo8yC1Jz@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [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 06:08:32 -0000

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:23:41AM +1000, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> 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.

Greg, I agree with your point and am willing to help spot practical
issues with various proposals.

Regards,
Willy