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: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:12:34 -0500
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <465B0351-C203-43A3-95B2-C0C2EA36E8B9@apple.com>
To: Yoav Nir <synp71@live.com>
Yoav,

On Nov 20, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Yoav Nir <synp71@live.com> wrote:
> ...
> That info will be interesting. I worry, though, that it's a huge undertaking to get a complete picture because of the long tail.

Iím less concerned about getting a 100% complete picture and more wanting to get a general picture based on proxies that are popular and/or known to have issues.

I am under no illusion (delusion? :) that we will be able to do HTTP/2.0 upgrade over current proxies.

Rather, I want to know whether a HTTP/2.0 client can successfully continue to function with HTTP/1.1 proxies - can we reliably either a) know that we can attempt an upgrade or b) recover from a failed upgrade?

Answering those questions will determine whether it is feasible to support plain text HTTP/2.0 on port 80 and/or whether we would really need a new URI scheme to differentiate between HTTP/1.x and HTTP/2.0.  Iím hopeful that the answer is actually *yes* since the ďfailureĒ mode for HTTP/2.0 upgrades is just using HTTP/1.1, vs. WebSockets and other similar extensions that rely on upgrade to work at all.

In short (and I apologize for paraphrasing): Failure IS an option.  We just need to know *how* HTTP/2.0 upgrade will fail to determine if it would prevent implementors from supporting plain text HTTP/2.0 over the Internet.

_______________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:13:03 UTC

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