W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 17:14:02 +1100
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, hybi HTTP <hybi@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E45BB7E0-D503-4294-9429-4E8880FC1F6C@mnot.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>

On 07/12/2010, at 5:10 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> In my opinion the problem is not here, but the adoption rate depending
> on the port. Many organisations implement URL filtering on port 80,
> white-list based filtering on 443 and nothing else around. If you want
> to deploy a site which quickly gets a lot of traffic, port 80 clearly
> is the most suited, which is even more true considering that long polling
> mechanisms already work over that port.

Quantify 'many.' According to Adam's paper, ~13% of clients will fail to negotiate with a CONNECT-based solution. Is "many" > 13% of the Internet?


> Also, being able to switch from HTTP to WS over a same socket for some
> services can save one round trip, but that's marginal in most situations,
> except from mobile phones.


Would they negotiate back to HTTP if they need to fetch an image? 



--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2010 06:14:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:33 GMT