- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:44:48 +1100
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24/10/2012, at 12:23 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: >> For browsers, upgrading on the first connection is obviously going to be >> critical. The DNS option seems like the best approach for the most general >> case, despite the various flaws in that approach. > > *except* for all those cases where middleware exists. In which case DNS hinting will be the cause of problems, not the solution. How so? For accelerators / "reverse" proxies, the party in control of the middleware is in control of the DNS. For configured proxies, the client is aware of the middleware and can figure out and remember its capabilities, via the upgrade mechanism. It's only for unconfigured / "transparent" / intercepting proxies that this might be a problem. If the protocol is designed to fail fast in their presence, this too should be manageable -- there might be some latency on first request in these networks, at worst. Bonus points for putting the blame squarely where it lies somehow... Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 03:45:21 UTC