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.

Amos

> 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 August 2012 00:11:49 GMT