- From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:21:08 +0200
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 07:06:59AM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: > I'm a little concerned about backward compatibility with this approach. > There do exist many web sites that offer different content today on the > two ports. Are you suggesting that they would become non-compliant? There is HTTP vs. HTTPS indication in the bytestream itself (:scheme, IIRC). Also, in some situations, the application protocols might not appreciate if client and server can't agree on HTTP vs. HTTPS... There's another problem tho. Many present websites don't like requests for HTTP URLs over TLS (I tested what one does[1]: It returns a default page with 200 status, Ouch). [1] That website is using PHP (FastCGI) on top of Apache (mod_ssl). -Ilari
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 06:21:31 UTC