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

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

From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:23:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYh96o_o1ppiwT4gB4ovx27zJEYjOabYohjKxAbauZt7Mw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm confused by this comment. My understanding is that multiple questions
per query does not work in practice. Also, how does the response work? If
the A record is cached, but the SRV record is uncached, does the server not
respond to the client until the SRV record comes back? Or does it stream
the records back somehow and have the client block on responses?

Patrick's explanation makes more sense to me.


On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> On 8/15/12 7:19 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
> Block is the wrong word.  You're already doing A-Record queries.  Adding
> another record in the question only adds latency if you must serially
> query.  Also, I myself am not convinced that SRV records are sufficient to
> the task.  For instance, what happens if there is a port # in the URL?  How
> do you identify the version #?
>
> Paul Hoffman did some work on a draft that sort-of looked at this
> problem.  I'm going to guess that he stopped short because of potential
> downgrade attacks.
>
> Eliot
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 18:24:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 15 August 2012 18:24:12 GMT