W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: 6455 Websockets and the relationship to HTTP

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 20:34:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrUsnQ2C8nugm3C9uCLnm4_=ztJmi4XqKYZegjVEofRYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> That's another way to do it too, provided the latency hit isn't critical.
> Since you've already got the H2 connection open in the typical case for WS,
> I think that'd work well, but I could be unaware of some use case that
> requires WS on the first RT.



Doing it with settings on alpn=h2 is a little tricky.. if you need to make
a new connection (e.g. you have none open) for wss do you do it with
alpn=h2 and hope for the setting and then fall back to a new connection
with h1 and upgrade if it doesn't work? That's a new pile of round trips
for legacy servers. otoh doing it via alpn makes it easy by offering
wsoverh2 and h1 in the handshake.. it also makes it easy for the h1 server
to use alt-svc to advertise a better version elsewhere as we see quic do.
Received on Friday, 2 December 2016 01:34:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 December 2016 01:34:59 UTC