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

Re: #385: HTTP2 Upgrade / Negotiation

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:41:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrjVtfPe_VzOR2daWDX4BupkmkPBMvrO7nuZows1t_LoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
Cc: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> wrote:

> > For http2, I don't think it is enough to just fail fast to http/1 when
> for most cases we could get those users speaking HTTP/2 over tls on 443. A
> mechanism like Alternate-Protocol accomplishes that and I think that is a
> more important property than upgrading in band (which is admittedly nice!).
> So rather than go to HTTP/1.1 you'd prefer going to TLS with an anonymous
> ciphersuite?  I don't think that would help much, as the transparent
> proxies that also MitM SSL are getting ever more popular.
The websockets results show that the TLS approach will work well with
legacy infrastructure and yes I'd rather have everyone that can use http2
actually use it before falling back to http/1 because there are significant
performance gains to be had.

no doubt that an unauth-tls-http2 would create growth in the transparent
ssl proxy market but that isn't really a big legacy compatibility isssue.
That's one place where I would expect to see compatibility with http2. For
the long tail of compat problems then sure, we're down to http/1 fallback.

> > As for caching successful upgrades or successful A-P's they pretty much
> have the same set of tradeoffs.
> Yes, but I don't think it's all that bad

I concur with that.
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 13:41:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:07 UTC