- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 11:07:26 +1200
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
apologies all... email client put sig at top instead of bottom.... sigh On 5/04/2012 10:59 p.m., Adrien W. de Croy wrote: > > ---- > Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com > WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/ > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu> >> If we apply a correct fallback to 1.1, your product will still be >> able to control the traffic as 1.1. This is why I think that it is >> very important to be backwards compatible with 1.1 : the upgrade is >> the most transparent possible and admins have no reason to explicitly >> block it. If we're not compatible, many admins will not make the effort >> of opening the new port since it will require equipments they don't >> have. >> > > Existing compliant 1.1 proxies will remove the Upgrade header, since > it references a protocol that it won't know yet. > > Unless it already adopts a strategy of getting out of the way (moving > to tunnel). > > Do we have any idea about how many will pass it through and therefore > allow 2.0 to function? > > Otherwise these things will keep their users in 1.1 land until they > are upgraded > >>> >>> I also suspect there is a plethora of cheap DSL/NAT routers which do >>> port 80 inspection which may break. Whether they break in a way that >>> prevents operation or not is another matter. >>> >> >> >> Don't forget that WebSocket readily uses this mechanism and that such >> bugs are already being reported to vendors. By the time we ship HTTP/2.0 >> a number of these implementation bugs will have been fixed, and not >> everyone will have deployed V2 anyway. >> > > OK. Would be interesting to see stats on rates of failure and why - > if you have any. > > Adrien > > >> >> >> Regards, >> Willy >> >> >> > > -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 23:07:58 UTC