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

Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:07:56 +0100
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120229210756.GC3575@1wt.eu>
Hi Adrien,

On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 09:25:25AM +1300, Adrien de Croy wrote:
(...)
> The problem with making SSL/TLS optional is that currently that's the 
> mechanism used to negotiate use of SPDY in the first place.  Without 
> that, you'd need to tell the client (e.g..in the hyperlink URIs) what 
> protocol to use / is in use at that site, which would mean hyperlinks 
> wouldn't be http://www.example.com any more, but something else like 
> spdy://www.example.com.

Using the Upgrade mechanism would solve this issue. It will also
make Roy feel happy to have insisted a lot that after a 101, the
server must send a final response to the request. what I mean is
that a client should simply send the first request in HTTP/1.1
with an Upgrade header for HTTP/2.0. If the server ignores Upgrade
and only replies in 1.1 the server is not 2.0 compliant. If the
server responds with 101 Switching Protocol with Upgrade: 2.0
then the protocol switches to 2.0 and the server responds in 2.0
language. From this point, everything is 2.0 between both sides.

And using Upgrade really offers a very smooth transition path
between 1.1 and 2.0.

Regards,
Willy
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 21:08:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:56 GMT