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: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 08:18:33 +0100
To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120301071833.GD7791@1wt.eu>
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 03:16:22PM -0800, Mike Belshe wrote:
> 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.

Not for the first request since the server responds to this request.
And since in HTTP you need the first request anyway to fetch the page
to discover the objects you'll have to request next, it's not an issue
for the first request of the keep-alive connection.

Regards,
Willy
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 07:19:40 GMT

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