- From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:39:39 -0800
- To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABaLYCvVnGbEwpWhnjr8HNq_ORf2Lyjct-hdhbYKpnKAqd=6kg@mail.gmail.com>
If the protocol is allowed to be slower than HTTP/1.1, then you could do this. But, a lot of server operators that care about performance aren't going to want to take that hit. Also, if the browser records that your server was HTTP/2.0 in the past, and now it downgrades to a non HTTP/2.0 response, the failure detection needs to be quick. If the frame format is different, depending on the way the bytes flow, this could lead to a devastating timeout (30+ seconds for the user to wait!) It all comes down to perf, though. The upgrade round trip is sure death. mike 2012/2/29 Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net> > ons 2012-02-29 klockan 15:16 -0800 skrev Mike Belshe: > > > The problem with upgrade is that it costs a round trip of latency. > > Only if you are pipelining and then only on the second request, and > pipelining on the first request is generally a bad idea anyway. So no. > > It's just means that the initial request (not it's response) is limited > to HTTP/1.x wire format and that you can't pipeline if the protocol > change means pipelined requests can not be properly parsed after the > protocol change. > > And if HTTP/2.x preserve initial request-line structure compatibility > with HTTP/1.x like it should then future requests to the same server > should be able to assume the server is HTTP/2.x capable from start, > until rejected, and you can even pipeline during the protocol upgrade if > desired. > > Regards > Henrik > > >
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2012 00:40:07 UTC