W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

RE: Large Frame Proposal

From: Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 00:53:46 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
CC: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9c093deb057c4c018284936d52beb068@BL2PR03MB372.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
The other problem with the experiment was that WebSockets was the basis. If the UPGRADE header is removed for any reason (compliant or not) then the WS connection fails.  In HTTP/2, most of the cases where UPGRADE is removed, it will simply result in a HTTP 1.1 connection.  That itself makes the "failure" much different.



-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 11:45 AM
To: "William Chan (陈智昌)"; K.Morgan@iaea.org
Cc: Roberto Peon; Matthew Kerwin; HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: Large Frame Proposal

On 2014-07-09 19:15, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:30 AM, <K.Morgan@iaea.org 
> <mailto:K.Morgan@iaea.org>> wrote:
>     Hi Roberto-
>     On Wednesday,09 July 2014 08:53, grmocg@gmail.com
>     <mailto:grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>      > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Matthew Kerwin
>     <matthew@kerwin.net.au <mailto:matthew@kerwin.net.au>> wrote:
>      >> Don't forget that some of us are going to be using IE a
>      >> lot more in future, if that lets us use HTTP/2 without TLS.
>     We likely fall into that category as well.
>      > Sure, good luck with that 85% success rate :)
>      > Makes sense on an intranet. Not so much on the wild,
>      > wild internet, unless things have substantially changed.
>      > -=R
>     Success rate of what?  Are you referring to IE?  Does that browser
>     have a particular success rate issue?  Or are you referring to an
>     issue with clear-text HTTP?  Clearly I am missing some context.  If
>     this was already discussed on-list and you can just point me to the
>     discussion I'll gladly go read it.
> The success rate is HTTP Upgrade in cleartext over the web as tested 
> with a single Google server and Google Chrome clients in an experiment.
> And 85% was for a separate port. For port 80, it was 63%. Details here:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg05593.html. More 
> general analysis at my blog:
> https://insouciant.org/tech/http-slash-2-considerations-and-tradeoffs/

> #Upgrade, including discussions of other deployment options and their 
> success rates.
> ...

It would be interesting to repeat that experiment. It's now 4.5 years later, and deploying Websockets may have caused broken code to be fixed.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 00:54:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC