- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:31:10 +0000
- To: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CACuKZqHb4UYTqffiAyE7duHAKg6SW8ejMNKgbd1yWssd_fA8Rw@mail.gmail.com> , Zhong Yu writes: >> No, it means "fetch this with HTTP", it doesn't say "HTTP/1" anywhere >> and if the user-agent determines that it can be fetched better with >> HTTP/2 on port 100, then that's just fine. > >There are a lot of existing programs, other than the few leading >browsers, that interpret "http://" URLs that way. Your proposal will >break them. Nope, it will work just fine. If the user-agent doesn't know about HTTP/2, it will use HTTP/1 just like always. If it knows about HTTP/2 and can fetch the content with HTTP/2 because the upstream indicated this, it will just work. If it cannot fetch it with HTTP/2, despite upstream indication (firewall etc.) It will fall back to HTTP/1 and maybe cache this info for some amount of time to save time. The only thing my proposal does not allow you to do, is deploy an HTTP/2 only site, but given how few IPv6 only sites there are, I don't think that is going to be a problem for anybody. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 21:31:32 UTC