- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:56:09 +1100
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 22/02/2013, at 6:02 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > I'm still having a problem with the principle behind 2b : when you > pass through transparent intercepting proxies, by definition you're > not aware of it. So even if 2a worked for the first connection, it > does not preclude that 2b will work for the second one. Nor the DNS > will BTW. Sorry, I wasn't clear; that would be for cases where you had a high degree of confidence that not only was HTTP/2.0 able to be spoken, but where you have an even higher degree of confidence that HTTP/1.x is NOT; e.g., a separate port (that you might have discovered through DNS, for example). -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 00:56:35 UTC