- From: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:03:01 +0100
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 15.11.2012 01:56, Mark Nottingham wrote: > On 15/11/2012, at 11:54 AM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote: >> - Are we advertising that port 80 is capable of HTTP/2, or an alternate port for HTTP/2, or (capable of) both? >> >> imo it has to be an arbitrary port.. if you send anything other than http/1 on port 80 across the general internet you'll get some breakage. > Agreed... however, I don't see a reason to make it impossible to say "I support HTTP/2 on port 80 too", so the client can optimistically try to use it first (as long as it can handle breakage). > > Cheers, When it can be determined from the first few bytes on the wire if it is HTTP/1 or HTTP/2 then servers and network elements could handle both protocols on the same port. The first bit may be enough for this (0 for ASCII HTTP and 1 for HTTP/2 control message?). However in the beginning there could be unnecessary breakages and a HTTP/2 default port may be a way around it. For example traffic may routed around HTTP/1 only network elements. > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > > Roland Zink http://home.zinks.de/
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 11:03:25 UTC