- 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>
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