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