Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

Totally agree. This is all post 2.4.21 with the "Header unset Upgrade" available as workaround for 2.4.21. > Am 16.06.2016 um 13:56 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : > > > On Jun 16, 2016 3:30 AM, "Stefan Eissing" > wrote: > > > > There are three

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

On Jun 16, 2016 3:30 AM, "Stefan Eissing" wrote: > > There are three things to address, one core related and one HTTP/2 related: > > 1. The whole discussion arose, because there are clients that seriously choke on >*any* Upgrade: response header. No matter what

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

There are three things to address, one core related and one HTTP/2 related: 1. The whole discussion arose, because there are clients that seriously choke on *any* Upgrade: response header. No matter what tokens it contains. Those *can* now be addressed via mod_header with a "Header unset

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

On 06/15/2016 01:32 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: It seems to me that we -can- implement Connection: Upgrade Upgrade: h2 on a plaintext connection, which is simply shorthand for Upgrade: TLS/1.x, HTTP/2 where the TLS connection *must* handshake with the ALPN token 'h2' (the 102 Switching

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

Rather than put statements into Roy's mouth... here are the relevant posts which were not disputed; https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2016AprJun/0152.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2016AprJun/0169.html It seems to me that we -can- implement Connection:

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

Zitat von Stefan Eissing : Withdrawn the proposal in r1747668 after reading the comment from Roy again. Apache is the only HTTP/2 server in this world that sends this strange header. So omitting it would be the right thing to do. Michael, since you know more

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Michael Kaufmann wrote: > > Note that "Suppress 'h2' announcements in Upgrade: header" has been > inserted at the top of the STATUS file; it should probably be moved to the > bottom of the 'Patches proposed' section. > Yea, that would be

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

Zitat von William A Rowe Jr : Skimming the responses, they just keep getting more and more amusing, and shining a candle to the absurdity of keeping this non-sequitur request response. Could you go ahead and add that conditional? To all developers who participated in

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:29 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: > >> >> Am 20.04.2016 um 13:16 schrieb Yann Ylavic : >> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Stefan Eissing

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

Yes, you are correct. Had not covered that test in my test suite... Fixed in r1740119. Thanks! -Stefan > Am 20.04.2016 um 13:24 schrieb Michael Kaufmann : > >> Done in r1740075. >> > > I think that commit introduced a small bug, because the "for" loop is left >

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

> Am 20.04.2016 um 13:16 schrieb Yann Ylavic : > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Stefan Eissing >> wrote: >>> Done in r1740075. >>> >>> I was thinking of a

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

Done in r1740075. I think that commit introduced a small bug, because the "for" loop is left when "h2" is seen and "report_all" is false. There may be other protocols that are more preferred than the current one. Suggested change: Index: server/protocol.c

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Stefan Eissing > wrote: >> Done in r1740075. >> >> I was thinking of a nicer solution, but that involved inventing new hooks >> which seems not worth it.

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > Done in r1740075. > > I was thinking of a nicer solution, but that involved inventing new hooks > which seems not worth it. > > Since this area of protocol negotiation has already been talked about in >

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

Zitat von Stefan Eissing : Done in r1740075. I was thinking of a nicer solution, but that involved inventing new hooks which seems not worth it. Since this area of protocol negotiation has already been talked about in regard to TLS upgrades and websockets, I

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

Done in r1740075. I was thinking of a nicer solution, but that involved inventing new hooks which seems not worth it. Since this area of protocol negotiation has already been talked about in regard to TLS upgrades and websockets, I do not want to invest in the current way of handling this too

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Stefan Eissing < stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote: > > > Am 19.04.2016 um 17:47 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : > > > > I agree with your analysis, "h2" is not an upgrade candidate. > > > > "h2c" is an upgrade candidate. > > > > This isn't

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:26 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jacob Champion > wrote: > >> On 04/19/2016 08:47 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> > I agree with your analysis, "h2" is not an upgrade candidate. >> > >> >

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 04/19/2016 08:47 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > I agree with your analysis, "h2" is not an upgrade candidate. > > > > "h2c" is an upgrade candidate. > > Is an h2c upgrade allowed over an HTTP/1.1+TLS connection?

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

On 04/19/2016 08:47 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > I agree with your analysis, "h2" is not an upgrade candidate. > > "h2c" is an upgrade candidate. Is an h2c upgrade allowed over an HTTP/1.1+TLS connection? 7540 seems to hint that it's not ("The 'h2c' string is reserved from the ALPN

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

> Am 19.04.2016 um 17:47 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : > > I agree with your analysis, "h2" is not an upgrade candidate. > > "h2c" is an upgrade candidate. > > This isn't even an HTTP/2 issue (unless the working group reverses themselves > on accepting Upgrade: h2 protocol

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

I agree with your analysis, "h2" is not an upgrade candidate. "h2c" is an upgrade candidate. This isn't even an HTTP/2 issue (unless the working group reverses themselves on accepting Upgrade: h2 protocol switching), until we accept Upgrade: h2 we should be dropping h2 from the server Upgrade:

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Michael Kaufmann wrote: Yes, you are right. But with the response header "Upgrade: h2", Apache is telling the client "you may send such a header" when in fact this is not allowed. Devils advocate: Apache is telling the client at the

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Michael Kaufmann wrote: > Yes, you are right. But with the response header "Upgrade: h2", Apache is > telling the client "you may send such a header" when in fact this is not > allowed. Devils advocate: Apache is telling the client at

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Michael Kaufmann wrote: I think that this is wrong, because of this sentence in RFC 7540: A server MUST ignore an "h2" token in an Upgrade header field. Presence of a token with "h2" implies HTTP/2 over TLS, which is instead

Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Michael Kaufmann wrote: > I think that this is wrong, because of this sentence in RFC 7540: >> >> A server MUST ignore an "h2" token in an Upgrade header field. Presence of >> a token with "h2" implies HTTP/2 over TLS, which is instead

"Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)

Hi, you may already know that HTTP/2 clients use ALPN to advertise support for HTTP/2 when TLS is used. The issue is this: When mod_http2 is enabled, Apache sends an "Upgrade: h2" response header to clients that have *not* advertised support for HTTP/2 (clients that speak only HTTP/1.x).