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

Re: Optimizations vs Functionality vs Architecture

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:11:11 +1200
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3febc957e28993c9c3ee452a95ce568e@treenet.co.nz>
On 23.08.2012 03:11, James M Snell wrote:
> I would say no. It's no different, for instance, than using any other
> tcp-based protocol.. you wouldn't use http to determine if ftp is
> supported, for instance. The upgrade path should only be required 
> when we
> try to use HTTP 2.0 on port 80.

Yes. agreed.

You would face the same upgrade issues if you were to attempt SPDY on 
port 80. But once you change the port you change the assumed protocol 
away from HTTP/1 and enable the NPN upgrade method to identify SPDY vs 
HTTP/1 vs HTTP/2 or whatever.

Our charter as proposed requires that HTTP/2 operate over existing web 
infrastructure. Which means port-80 for a vast majority of networks - 
where HTTP/1 is assumed by every hardware transistor along the way. I 
see the DNS and alternative as optimizations we *might* be able to use 
for faster setup, but cannot guarantee working.


> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> On 8/22/12 4:43 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> > * DNS SRV records easily perform end-to-end detection. But HTTP
>> > requires next-hop detection.
>> Is that true for ports other than 80?  That is- if you have an
>> indication to use, say, port 880, and you're going right to SPDY, do 
>> you
>> need next-hop detection for purposes of versioning at least?
>> Eliot
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 00:11:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 October 2015 05:36:54 UTC