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

Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies?

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 20:20:08 +0000
To: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, "Albert Lunde" <atlunde@panix.com>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <emf087bd48-34a3-4da1-953a-0ebf51001a67@bodybag>


------ Original Message ------
From: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
To: "Albert Lunde" <atlunde@panix.com>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 4/12/2013 7:18:21 a.m.
Subject: Re: What will incentivize deployment of explicit proxies?
>
>Le Mar 3 décembre 2013 17:47, Albert Lunde a écrit :
>>  If this sort of proxy discovery/negotiation process is such an
>>  improvement, it seems like there might be merit to specifying it in
>>  parallel for HTTP/HTTPS 1.1 and HTTP/HTTPS 2.0, even if the messages 
>>and
>>  state management used aren't exactly identical.
>
>I thought the aim of keeping http1 semantics was to allow 
>http2-to-http1
>bridges? If that's the case we only need good proxy support in http2, 
>the
>proxy will terminate the http2 link and translate to http1 for http1 
>web
>sites
>
>Trying to fix http1 for proxies at this stage seems way too late 
>(unless
>http2 goes nowhere)
Actually I think there would still be an enormous benefit to be had from 
fixing this in 1.1

We can deploy such things very quickly, and customers can start to see 
benefits straight away.  unlike the expected timeframe for widespread 
benefits from 2.0, since that's not even a target we can implement to, 
let alone roll out etc.

Adrien


>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Nicolas Mailhot
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 20:20:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:20 UTC