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

Re: HTTP 1.1 --> 2.0 Upgrade

From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:56:27 +0200
Message-ID: <503217DB.6070705@cisco.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yoav, Willy,

On 8/20/12 11:02 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
>>> What about using bonjour / mdns / etc?
>> Like DNS SRV records, it's great when it works, but both are often filtered (or not implemented)

Good for the home.  And nothing stops this. By the way, I am still not
convinced, myself, that SRV records are the correct approach.  Or at
least not what we call SRV records today.  Again, the http URI schema
defines a port #.  To me, that's the end of SRV as we know it.  But, one
could imagine a record that would address this concern.  How about this:

www.example.com    IN    BLARF    (80, HTTP2.0,other capabilities...),
(83,HTTP1.1,other capabilities), ...
                                   IN   AAAA    2001:...

And in the default case fall back to 1.1, which is what Phillip pretty
much suggested.  This gets you to 2.0 before you connect.  Then for
those cases which are not in the DNS, as willy suggests, you do it in
path (NPN, upgrade, or whatever).  But here's the question: would such a
scheme really provide substantial benefit?  That is (a) does it really
save an RTT and (b) does that RTT matter to people?

>
> We must never forget that what made HTTP succeed is also the fact that
> it's self-contained, does not require additional side-band protocols,
> works end-to-end over a single connection and is 100% NAT-friendly by
> not storing any IP-related information anywhere.
>

Well indeed.  I work at a routing vendor, for crying out loud.  Our
routers probably don't have DNS entries when they're being configured.

Eliot
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 10:56:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 August 2012 10:57:02 GMT