Re: [hybi] New Version Notification for draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets-00.txt

[Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>]

the concept is that CONNECT establishes a HTTP tunnel to a websockets
server.. any websocket stuff happens in that tunnel, any HTTP stuff happens
out at the CONNECT side (so that might be path, authority, cookies for
CONNECT, and version subprotocol extensions and selected subprotocol in the
tunnel..). That's the same flow as the current text, its just a simpler
parser that doesn't drag h1 into things. Smooshing all the options onto the
CONNECT (as they were with the 6455 GET) doesn't really have any perf
benefit assuming you pipeline the DATA frames before the response HEADERS.
(and I'll update the example to show that)



On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Stefan Eissing <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks for the poll!
>
> > Am 17.10.2017 um 16:34 schrieb Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>:
> >
> > Clearly substituting the h1 exchange out in favor of a new websockets
> specific exchange that contained sub-protocol and version tokens would look
> better on paper... I actually thought diverging from 6455 would make people
> LESS likely to implement. Maybe I'm wrong.
> >
> > So let's poll - please speak up if you have a ws impl (either client or
> server):
> >
> > If the spec added a new websockets specific parameter negotiation and
> removed the H1 syntax it would make me
> >  a] MORE likely to implement
> >  b] LESS likely to implement
> >  c] wouldn't change my behavior but I like it more
> >  d] wouldn't change my behavior but it would be more painful (or like it
> less)
> >  e] really don't care at all.
>
> c)
>
> However, it is not really clear to me why we need another parameter
> negotiation,
> besides defining what rfc6455, ch. 4.2.1 means by "Upgrade" and
> "Connection" header
> requirements on a h2 stream.
>
> You most likely have more ws experience than myself, so please understand
> this as a
> real question for me and not some rhetoric hand-waving.
>
> To explain my pov: the h2 code sits on the connection/stream, will detect
> the
> to-be-defined equivalent of a "Upgrade: websocket" request header and feed
> the server-internal,
> proprietary websocket implementation all the information it desires. h1/h2
> protocol serialization
> is basically over at this point.
>
> That is how I look at it. This might be totally different for other
> peoples implementation, of course.
>
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Stefan Eissing <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Am 16.10.2017 um 23:31 schrieb Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Mike Bishop <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > [...]
> > >
> > > I hear what you're saying.. but I think you're going a touch too far.
> websocket means 6455 which has all that h1 stuff as part of its
> configuration.. I think it would be totally fair to say such a server could
> have a more constrained parser that failed any non-ws compliant handshake
> even if it were valid h1. Mostly I think it becomes an insanely ugly what
> to do websocket parameter exchange.
> > >
> > > I think of origin info (scheme and authority) more as keys to route
> the CONNECT request.. it's :protocol that defines what to do in the tunnel.
> I admit I did consider calling it :alpn (which has a similar kind of
> property.. its a route of sorts but it doesn't bear the SETTINGS or magic
> of h2)
> >
> > Me stupid. Me asking, why not :upgrade?
> >
> > ht;dr (have time, do read)
> >
> > As proposed, the CONNNECT seems to say: let's talk HTTP/1.1 on this
> stream from now on, afaict.
> >
> > >From a server implementation pov that opens a larger can of worms. It
> would mean warming up the HTTP/1.1 engine for the DATA on this stream. That
> needs some extra care so that it does only safe things inside a h2 stream.
> On first glance, it seems to be easier and safer to do the stream :upgrade
> inside the h2 protocol handling itself.
> >
> > Just my initial gut reaction...
> >
> > -Stefan
> >
> > > You have kind of let the cat out of the bag at just doing an h1
> connect. That's actually possible with the draft (or at least envisioned)
> as I defined :protocol separate from the websocket specific stuff... but I
> kinda hope to never speak of it again :)
> > >
> > > This is a tough one - its definitely going for simplicity as its main
> goal.. that means ignoring many places that can be improved. That's a
> choice based on
> > >  a] the history of other efforts seem to suggest there is no stomach
> for complexity/risk here
> > >  b] we hear about this problem enough that I think its worth seeing if
> this can be m ade a consensus mvp
> > >  c] my belief that websockets is a transitional technology - it will
> be around for years but some kind of native http will supplant it.
> > >
> > > ymmv (more than usual on this one!)
> > >
> > > -P
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Given that you’re doing the full Upgrade-to-WebSockets dance inside
> the tunneled connection, why don’t you just say that you’re CONNECTing to
> an HTTP/1.1 tunnel?  That’s then treated as HTTP/1.1 over TCP, which is
> fully allowed to do Upgrade itself.  If you’re sure that’s the path you
> want, then simply say in the HTTP/2 layer that you’re doing HTTP/1.1 inside
> the stream.  Incidentally, that might be a nice alternative for dealing
> with HTTP_1_1_REQUIRED responses, too!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Patrick McManus [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 5:16 AM
> > > To: Andy Green <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>; Patrick McManus <
> [e-mail]>; hybi <[e-mail]>; Cory Benfield <
> [e-mail]>; Patrick McManus <[e-mail]>; HTTP Working
> Group <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: Re: [hybi] New Version Notification for
> draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets-00.txt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Andy Green <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > You can probably pipeline the CONNECT + ws handshake though, Patrick
> shows them sequentially and I didn't think about it myself.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > right. The example is just for clarity and cannot show all expressions
> of h2 flows.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > CONNECT + DATA before the response headers is pretty much the h2
> analog of TCP Fast Open. The devil is in the details.. That's a general
> CONNECT + DATA issue not limited to the protocol upgrade described here so
> I don't think its worth discussion in a websockets rfc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the path to success here hinges on a very tight scoping of
> work and therefore optimizing handshake latency is a non-goal of this
> effort.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Still only two round trips.
> > >
> > >
> > >  - SETTINGS                      - SETTINGS
> > >  - GET /index.html
> > >                  - 200 HEADERS + DATA
> > >
> > >  - :method CONNECT
> > >  - DATA ws handshake
> > >                   - 200 HEADERS
> > >                   - DATA ws handshake final
> > >                   - DATA...
> > >
> > >  - DATA ...             - DATA...
> > >
> > > With the part of the pipelining that is legal for ws, two round trips
> before the client can start to send data and 1.5 before the server can send
> data... if it's true then you're right it's not so bad.
> > >
> > > Were you concerned that the client needs to learn that the server
> > > supports websockets and not just :protocol?
> > >
> > >
> > > No I just followed Patrick's sequencing; he shows them serialized.
> But you're right at least the CONNECT + ws handshake can probably be
> pipelined.
> > >
> > > That's also going to be a variation from normal h2 HEADERS flow if I
> understood it, on one stream there will be END_HEADERs coming twice (for
> the CONNECT and the ws handshake separately)
> > >
> > > Anyway you are right, it makes any difference with PUSH_PROMISE
> probably not worth the effort.
> > >
> > > -Andy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>