- From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:48:18 -0400
- To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
sorry - too much shorthand. This is for http:// urls of course.. https:// can just use npn on the A address. race A and SRV queries.. make best practice to bundle SRV answers as additional information in responses to A queries. Best experience returns an A bundled with SRV. But if you get an A without a bundled SRV then go ahead and use it immediately for HTTP/1 and allow a upgrade/alternate-protocol to do the bootstrapping that less ideal way. So its just an optimization. On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 10:19 -0700, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote: > Can you elaborate how SRV would work here from a client perspective? > Do you propose making the client block on the SRV lookup? Or are you > proposing doing this out of band and switching to HTTP/2.0 if we > discover support? > > > http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=22423#c9 has some > of our thoughts on SRV in Chromium. > > > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Patrick McManus > <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 12:24 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > > > If we take architecture seriously, the primary signaling > mechanism for > > HTTP/2.0 should be some form of statement in a DNS record to > tell the > > client 'I do HTTP 2.0'. We might also have some sort of > upgrade > > mechanism for use when the DNS records are blocked but that > should be > > a fallback. > > > This is my current thinking as well though I'm not tied to > it.. srv in > the base case (with the possibility of dnssec) and something > like > upgrade/alternate-protocol over HTTP/1 as a slower fallback. > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:48:51 UTC