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

Re: #385: HTTP2 Upgrade / Negotiation

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:47:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbdUhc01quGxUEpk3YGNYpbeG4iMwkcgBSAHegVQKwi0_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> [snip[
>
> So, I'd put it this way:
>
> The DNS-based upgrade is optimistic; it will be fast as long as there
> isn't an unknown middlebox present; if there is, it'll be slower to start.
> The question is how often that will happen, and how detectable / variable
> it is.
>
> On the other hand, the Upgrade-based negotiation is pessimistic; it assume
> that something will go wrong until we prove that both ends speak the same
> language. It'll be fast but have some limitations at the start (as
> discussed).
>
> Ideally, we'd have exactly one way to upgrade for HTTP URIs. However, that
> *may* not be possible -- if enough people's needs aren't met by the Upgrade
> path, other mechanisms for doing it will be developed, and if that's going
> to happen, I'd like it to be interoperable, and ideally part of the spec
> itself.
>
>
An optimistic approach where DNS is not in the picture is going to be a
necessity at some point.

- James
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 07:48:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 07:48:29 GMT