- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 04:54:27 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Mark, On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:56:09AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 22/02/2013, at 6:02 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > > > I'm still having a problem with the principle behind 2b : when you > > pass through transparent intercepting proxies, by definition you're > > not aware of it. So even if 2a worked for the first connection, it > > does not preclude that 2b will work for the second one. Nor the DNS > > will BTW. > > Sorry, I wasn't clear; that would be for cases where you had a high degree of > confidence that not only was HTTP/2.0 able to be spoken, but where you have > an even higher degree of confidence that HTTP/1.x is NOT; e.g., a separate > port (that you might have discovered through DNS, for example). Then if that's to be used on a different port, we probably don't need to check how servers respond to this magic on port 80. Willy
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 03:54:58 UTC