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: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:16:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CABaLYCuAurN-G4GHLk6KHaWiLPWWTHBdixk0SWT6rsnet7OZkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> 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.
>

The problem with upgrade is that it costs a round trip of latency.

Mike


>
> Regards,
> Willy
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 23:16:51 GMT

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