- From: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:14:24 +0300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 8/6/12 11:37 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 07:11:35AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>> I think this will be extremely common for a very long time. >>> >>> 2.0 client talks to 2.0 local proxy talking to 1.1 internet. >> That's not a terribly interesting use-case is it ? >> >> The RTT to a local proxy is not prohibitive, so running HTTP/2.0 >> on that path will gain you very little performance, and insisting >> on running both 2.0 and 1.1 would cost very little, since the >> link is very likely a LAN. > This use case should prevail in mobile environments. Your smartphone > should have an explicit proxy configured (instead of passing via an > interception proxy) that will also save it from round trips caused > by DNS requests. I agree, however to be honest the fact that a smartphone does not have an explicit proxy configured and instead it use an interception proxy is only due to the 3GPP spec or to me more correct on how the 3GPP spec is implemented in mobile environments > I really think that the biggest savings we could > expect from 2.0 and by far is to have smartphones communicate via > their operator's explicit proxies. right, and for this we need to make sure that also in 2.0 will be possible to discover and configure an explicit proxy to use br Salvatore -- Salvatore Loreto, PhD www.sloreto.com
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 07:14:50 UTC