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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:28:02 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, "<K.Morgan@iaea.org>" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D1F7798A-2CA8-498E-95EA-E2C2CB4FD8FF@ericsson.com>

On Jul 9, 2014, at 8:44 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> 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
> 

true!
it would be really interesting to repeat the experiment for web socket (a lot of proxies and also web servers have been updated to support ws)
and  also run one ad-hoc for http2 as the behaviour between the tow are quite
different at the end

br
Salvatore

Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 11:28:28 UTC

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