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

Re: #385: HTTP2 Upgrade / Negotiation

From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:54:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNodck+yQAavBPi8-EWsAOpMXMYTFQCVoAVY46FAC5-89w@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:33 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

>
> Just to be clear, SRV records also have the disadvantage of not
> upgrading the first interaction, unless you block on the response,
>

also being clear - in cases where SRV wins the race there is an advantage
to be had without blocking. A high quality implementation can bundle the
srv response with the A as an additional record.. even if that isn't what
is happening today, supporting this mechanism provides a path for servers
to opt themselves into it without blocking on it. And of course sometimes
name resolution happens considerably before connect happens so there still
might be an opportunity to collect both the a* and the srv before going to
connect without blocking on it even if the SRV considerably lags the A. So
I think this is an important optimization.

but +1 on not building in a mandatory delay inducer like blocking on srv,
or an upgrade with an empty payload.
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 18:54:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2012 18:54:35 GMT