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

Re: Optimizations vs Functionality vs Architecture

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:44:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjdWbYtFLWVJ7eStGrq3ZP_kyHLhHPoHJdyzMENXDxGOw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Which is one reason I like SRV, you can specify a different port.

I think we have to decide what we mean by make intermediaries work, do
we mean that the user gets the experience they expect or do we mean
that the deployer of the intermediary gets to control that experience?

I don't see that we really need to consider proxies as anything more
than a roadblock to get through.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:56 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On port 80, the only thing you can rely upon working is the most commonly
> used subset of http/1.1.
>
> Thus, user-agents and servers must handle both upgrade and downgrade as
> necessary basically all the time.
>
> -=R
>
> On Aug 22, 2012 5:13 PM, "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 11:44:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 August 2012 11:44:48 GMT