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

Re: comments on draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:19:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYg3T2WHFHRS-f0who7g8M20J1Jz1Gf4VB6X9X8QJv=sVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Can you elaborate how SRV would work here from a client perspective? Do you
propose making the client block on the SRV lookup? Or are you proposing
doing this out of band and switching to HTTP/2.0 if we discover support?

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=22423#c9 has some of our
thoughts on SRV in Chromium.


On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 12:24 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> > If we take architecture seriously, the primary signaling mechanism for
> > HTTP/2.0 should be some form of statement in a DNS record to tell the
> > client 'I do HTTP 2.0'. We might also have some sort of upgrade
> > mechanism for use when the DNS records are blocked but that should be
> > a fallback.
>
> This is my current thinking as well though I'm not tied to it.. srv in
> the base case (with the possibility of dnssec) and something like
> upgrade/alternate-protocol over HTTP/1 as a slower fallback.
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:19:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:19:43 GMT