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

Re: on DNS records

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:54:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNo=3WBNOnibNKAGyS_VBz3inBG5KRJGfP4U3-FxpS7X9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:



> , I personally would be OK saying that the DNS-based optimisation doesn't
> work for HTTP URIs that specify a non-default port. Yes, we may not be able
> to get the first round-trip to our router configuration page perfectly
> optimised, but that's a reasonable price to pay for simplicity. What do
> others think?
>
>
That's my assumption too - I'm fine with that.

>
> - Are we advertising that port 80 is capable of HTTP/2, or an alternate
> port for HTTP/2, or (capable of) both?
>

imo it has to be an arbitrary port.. if you send anything other than http/1
on port 80 across the general internet you'll get some breakage.
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 00:54:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 November 2012 00:54:54 GMT