Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 09 December 2010 03:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 6D8C63A69AD for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 19:09:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.618
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.019, 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 T-Je+uhgdTiv for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 19:09:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434813A6874 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 19:09:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chancetrain-lm.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.2.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5250F22E1F4; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 22:11:02 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <r2f0g6d7bj770kg0db5ptr027ninmckns8@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:10:59 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <47F9CA2D-2F50-4EAB-BD38-E8285D81273E@mnot.net>
References: <BB947F6D-15AA-455D-B830-5E12C80C1ACD@mnot.net> <81870DB1-B177-4253-8233-52C4168BE99D@apple.com> <F4D1B715-3606-4E9A-BFB2-8B7BC11BE331@mnot.net> <57D4B885-B1D8-482F-8747-6460C0FFF166@apple.com> <37A00E8D-B55C-49AD-A85C-A299C80FFF17@mnot.net> <4F2580A7-79C2-4B0A-BCE5-7FB6D9AA0ED7@apple.com> <BB31C4AB95A70042A256109D461991260583956C@XCH117CNC.rim.net> <EA41A6C7-971C-4EC8-AA6F-96363B7FDC4C@gmail.com> <73E53F19-E0E7-4ADB-B765-ABAF0B4A6736@mnot.net> <r2f0g6d7bj770kg0db5ptr027ninmckns8@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade
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: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 03:09:42 -0000

On 09/12/2010, at 2:03 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> What the Working Group does not have is a framework in which this can
> be resolved.


Indeed. I think the original question has been answered; we can't help if HYBI doesn't know what it wants. It's clear to me, however, that a) the CONNECT approach isn't a panacea (and indeed may cause more problems than it solves), and b) Upgrade on port 80 is workable, provided that you can accept that not all attempts are successful (a trait shared by any approach on port 80).

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/