- From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:39:52 +0000
- To: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu>, "Patrick McManus" <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "Yoav Nir" <ynir@checkpoint.com>, "Gabriel Montenegro" <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
------ Original Message ------ From: "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu> >Thus I would not be surprized to see a success rate close to 100% with the >following sequence to sites accepting both ports when HTTP/2 is released : > 1) HTTP Upgrade on port 80 > 2) fallback to TLS on port 443 > > I think 2 could introduce a significant delay. What proportion of websites support TLS on 443? Or is this purely to get past intermediaries to a site you already know supports 2.0? Or how do you know already that the site is available on 443, and if someone clicked a http:// URL, is it valid to make a https connection? Sometimes it's a different site on the different port. In fact for that reason alone, you can't change the port that the URI specified from 80 to 443. You can end up getting the wrong site. I foresee a bunch of problems where 1 fails due to intercepting proxy not understanding Upgrade, and 2 fails because the site is http only on 80 only. Or did I misunderstand what you're getting at? Regards Adrien > >And when both fail, clearly 1.1 is the only way to go. > >Regards, >Willy > > > >
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 21:40:15 UTC