W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: A proposal

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>
Message-ID: <58145.1384723870@critter.freebsd.dk>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC