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: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 13:36:02 +1300
Message-ID: <4F4EC472.9070000@qbik.com>
To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

On 1/03/2012 1:31 p.m., Henrik Nordström wrote:
> ons 2012-02-29 klockan 23:53 +0000 skrev Poul-Henning Kamp:
>> In message<1330559425.24673.149.camel@home.hno.se>, Henrik =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nord
>> str=F6m?= writes:
>>> ons 2012-02-29 klockan 15:16 -0800 skrev Mike Belshe:
>>>> The problem with upgrade is that it costs a round trip of latency.
>>> Only if you are pipelining and then only on the second request, and
>>> pipelining on the first request is generally a bad idea anyway. So no.
>> There is of course an incredible evil way to indicate what protocol
>> you want, without expending a RTT:
> Which RTT?
>> Have the server send a TCP option in the SYN+ACK packet that tells
>> you what it can do on this TCP connection.
> We can't assume such detail TCP transport. Might be running over SOCKS
> or any other intermediary protocol abstracting away any such details.

similar could happen for SPDY with SSL as well, if an intermediary mitms 
the connection, unless they pass on the option negotiation, it's gone.


> Regards
> Henrik

Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 00:36:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:00 UTC