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 21:50:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYiMXCMHs-KFJ8npQjYb=PGcVgS47mT+X2Fn=CEUWTCmbw@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 clarify the reason to prefer srv over something like an
Alternate-Protocol response header? I can see that Alternate-Protocol is
suboptimal in that it requires waiting for a response first, but I have
concerns about adding yet another DNS lookup. Chromium has already lowered
our concurrent getaddrinfo() calls to 6 due to problems with home routers
not being able to handle too many concurrent DNS queries. Adding more DNS
lookups per hostname will further exacerbate the problem.

In any case, FWIW, I hope websites simply transition to https:// URIs
instead :)


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 Thursday, 16 August 2012 04:50:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 August 2012 04:50:56 GMT