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

Re: options or protocols?

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 13:56:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYg4tPFu3vzHoWXqQa2f-mbgtofz4hyjgVA=QUMwp7OTWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 5/04/2012 11:29 p.m., Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
>> That's what I'd really like to see happen : a smooth and transparent
>> opening of 2.0. Probably that for HTTPS, NPN might result in a faster
>> adoption since there are less controls, so that will not change anything
>> for admins : either they already block and will continue to do so, or they
>> already don't care and wont either.
>>
>
> I think a lot of the sites that allow 443 through are growing more and
> more uncomfortable with it.  So it's likely to change, esp as traffic
> migrates to https.
>
> Therefore I wouldn't assume things will remain the way they currently are
> - in terms of people allowing or not caring.
>
> I think the "smooth" upgrade path might take aeons :)
>
> It would be interesting if it were possible to do an experiment using
> another port.  Google would be in a position to test that :)


Do you mean like we did for the WebSocket experiment over port 61985? See
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg05593.html.

I'm already having a lot of discussions internally at Google with various
folks about experiments we can run to provide data here. If you have any
suggestions, I'm open to implementing them.


>
>
> Adrien
>
>
> --
> Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 11:57:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:59 GMT