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

Re: HTTP 1.1 --> 2.0 Upgrade

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:49:53 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120820084953.GB11752@1wt.eu>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:25:46AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-08-20 10:16, Yoav Nir wrote:
> >Hi
> >
> >There's been a recent discussion about signaling support for HTTP 2.0 in
> >the DNS. I think that is a good way to go about it, but it doesn't cover
> >all cases.
> >
> >I believe there is value in an upgrade mechanism, for example for home
> >routers and other devices that use HTTP for configuration long before
> >(if ever) they have DNS entries, let alone SRV records.  While such a
> >mechanism may also be useful for HTTPS, something like NPN can be used
> >as part of the TLS handshake.
> >
> >So here's my proposal:
> >
> > 1. When first connecting to a website, the client begins with HTTP 
> > 1.0/1.1.
> > 2. A server that supports HTTP/2.0 responds with a new header:
> >    "HTTP-VERSIONS: 1.1,2.0". This header is included in the server's
> >    response to the client's request.
> 
> There's already an "Upgrade" header field for that.

+1.

All this work has been done over and over for WebSocket, I don't see
why we need to reinvent the wheel.

Upgrade was designed *exactly* for that purpose and fits it very well.
Moreover it is the only one (along with NPN) which considers the
intermediary chain, while side-band mechanisms (such as DNS) cannot
take that into account.

Best regards,
Willy
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 08:50:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 August 2012 08:50:38 GMT