On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > Hi Adrien, > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 09:25:25AM +1300, Adrien de Croy wrote: > (...) > > The problem with making SSL/TLS optional is that currently that's the > > mechanism used to negotiate use of SPDY in the first place. Without > > that, you'd need to tell the client (e.g..in the hyperlink URIs) what > > protocol to use / is in use at that site, which would mean hyperlinks > > wouldn't be http://www.example.com any more, but something else like > > spdy://www.example.com. > > Using the Upgrade mechanism would solve this issue. It will also > make Roy feel happy to have insisted a lot that after a 101, the > server must send a final response to the request. what I mean is > that a client should simply send the first request in HTTP/1.1 > with an Upgrade header for HTTP/2.0. If the server ignores Upgrade > and only replies in 1.1 the server is not 2.0 compliant. If the > server responds with 101 Switching Protocol with Upgrade: 2.0 > then the protocol switches to 2.0 and the server responds in 2.0 > language. From this point, everything is 2.0 between both sides. > > And using Upgrade really offers a very smooth transition path > between 1.1 and 2.0. > The problem with upgrade is that it costs a round trip of latency. Mike > > Regards, > Willy > > >
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 23:16:51 UTC