W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: options or protocols?

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:59:58 +0000
To: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <emffa77d65-423a-4ff0-8ae2-fa599ef98b5b@boist>

Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/

------ Original Message ------
From: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>
>If we apply a correct fallback to 1.1, your product will still be
>able to control the traffic as 1.1. This is why I think that it is
>very important to be backwards compatible with 1.1 : the upgrade is
>the most transparent possible and admins have no reason to explicitly
>block it. If we're not compatible, many admins will not make the effort
>of opening the new port since it will require equipments they don't
Existing compliant 1.1 proxies will remove the Upgrade header, since it 
references a protocol that it won't know yet.
Unless it already adopts a strategy of getting out of the way (moving 
to tunnel).
Do we have any idea about how many will pass it through and therefore 
allow 2.0 to function?
Otherwise these things will keep their users in 1.1 land until they are 
>>I also suspect there is a plethora of cheap DSL/NAT routers which do
>>port 80 inspection which may break.  Whether they break in a way that
>>prevents operation or not is another matter.
>Don't forget that WebSocket readily uses this mechanism and that such
>bugs are already being reported to vendors. By the time we ship HTTP/2.0
>a number of these implementation bugs will have been fixed, and not
>everyone will have deployed V2 anyway.
OK.  Would be interesting to see stats on rates of failure and why - if 
you have any.

Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 11:00:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:02 UTC