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

Re: Optimizations vs Functionality vs Architecture

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:30:35 +0000
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <88238.1345584635@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <2A8028EE-0EEC-4E42-89C4-347C33F60B90@checkpoint.com>, Yoav Nir writ
es:

>A requirement for downgrade creates too many restrictions, even if we throw
> SPDY away. The beginning of a 2.0 connection would have to look enough like
>1.x so as to fool existing servers. 

Yes, and ?

Sending:

	HEAD / HTTP/1.1
	Upgrade: HTTP/2.0

as a preamble on a connection is not very expensive.


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 21:31:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 August 2012 21:31:07 GMT