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 20:01:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpAcDzFT6ekfNa9tL3Bum1pmeHCbCw2h1CGJGjmJFfLWg@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>
multiple ports are fine by me.. just not limited to 80.

in general, whether this is a-p, upgrade, or srv, this is also the spot to
mux between tls as well as draft versions of the protocol. (i.e. upgrade:
http2-draft-00-tls)

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> On 15/11/2012, at 11:54 AM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
> >
> > - 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.
>
> Agreed... however, I don't see a reason to make it impossible to say "I
> support HTTP/2 on port 80 too", so the client can optimistically try to use
> it first (as long as it can handle breakage).
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 01:01:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 November 2012 01:01:46 GMT