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

Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:23:38 +0000
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.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>
Message-ID: <42778.1384935818@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <20131120072826.GH22150@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:
>On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 04:08:49AM +0000, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>> 
>> my 2c is that http/2.0 (TLS or not) is enough of a departure from http, 
>> that trying to put plaintext http/2.0 over port 80 will just be an 
>> impossible nightmare.
>
>Changing the port will require to change the scheme as well otherwise
>it will end up being even worse. For example, *right now* over the net
>and even much more in corporate networks, you have many applications
>running on non-80 ports. So when the browser will have to connect to
>"http://foo.bar.tld:8080/", what version will it use ?

Long time ago I argued that we should look into "no-RTT upgrade", ie
a scheme where the first byte sent from client to server on HTTP/2
would allow the server to decide which protocol it was.

Together with an "Also:" or alt-svc header which announces which
protocols are supported by the server, this could work seamlessly:

	if port == 100
		http/2
	elif we've seen Also: header announcing http/2
		http/2
	else
		http/1

This idea may be worth revisiting.


-- 
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 Wednesday, 20 November 2013 08:24:00 UTC

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