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

Re: HTTP 1.1 --> 2.0 Upgrade

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 19:03:24 +0200
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20121001170324.GJ23395@1wt.eu>
Hi Greg,

On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 09:49:42AM -0700, Greg Wilkins wrote:
> Patrick,
> 
> this is a good analysis, but my main quibble is that case 3b should be
> renumbered to be case 0
> 
> Connecting to port 80 and upgrading to the protocol/version that you
> want to use should be the basically defined way that a http semantic
> connection is established, regardless of wire protocol and version
> used.  All other mechanisms (NPN on 443, DNS SRV, cached redirection
> to known HTTP/2.0 ports) should all be considered as optimisations of
> the basic case.
> 
> Saving round trips is important and I'm all for optimisations for that
> - but I think it is a MUST that HTTP/2.0 will work in an environment
> where there is only port 80 and the ability to make a single
> connection.
> 
> So I guess that means I support both  3a and 3b.
> 
> cheers
> 
> PS.  Does upgrade really mean an extra round trip?  Can't we pipeline
> HTTP/2.0 request behind the upgrade request if we are confident of
> success?

There are possibilities for this that we discussed in the network-friendly
draft, basically pass a few URIs in a dedicated header field that the server
is free to consider or not.

Willy
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 17:03:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 1 October 2012 17:03:53 GMT