- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:46:43 +1300
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- CC: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
one other thing, I think we are losing site of context here. We're discussing possible features for a new protocol which is not necessarily syntactically compatible with HTTP/1.x This means that every piece of deployed HTTP infrastructure would need to be upgraded if it wishes to support the new protocol. So raising roadblocks for general protocol features on the basis of very limited existing 1.x implementations serves no useful purpose. In that light, I'll throw something else out there. I think it may possibly solve more problems than it would create to simply use a different port for "http 2.0", and not try to achieve backward compatibility / interoperability with 1.x on the same port. There - I said it :) Adrien -- Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 20:48:33 UTC