- From: Leif Hedstrom <leif@ogre.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:00:24 -0600
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Patrick Pelletier <code@funwithsoftware.org>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, IETF HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sep 13, 2013, at 3:55 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > In message <A5264783-BDBC-445B-B97D-0764319FC38C@la-grange.net>, Karl Dubost wr > ites: > >> Note that anything which is removed will break something. > > Yes, undoubtedly. > > But if HTTP/2.0 limits User-Agent to 32 bytes, that means that > no HTTP/2.0 browser will send more than 32 bytes, and no website > will support HTTP/2.0 until they can do their job with just 32 bytes > of User-Agent. I imagine that for some time during HTTP/2 early deployments, the primary server technology would include HTTP/2.0 -> HTTP/1.1 proxies. As such, those same HTTP/1.1 servers would presumably still require the same UA fingerprinting as they do today. From prior experiences, most IPv6 deployments I've done used v6tov4 proxies. We would roll v6 out on a small number of servers, yet still provide the feature for all existing IPv4 services. It seems reasonable to think that HTTP/2 would be deployed (initially) in a similar fashion? Yes, I know, the HTTP/2->HTTP/1.1 proxies could rewrite the UA. :) I probably would if we changed the UA requirements (e.g. 32-byte size limit). Cheers, -- Leif
Received on Monday, 16 September 2013 15:01:46 UTC