Re: A proposal

In message <>
, Zhong Yu writes:

>> No, it means "fetch this with HTTP", it doesn't say "HTTP/1" anywhere
>> and if the user-agent determines that it can be fetched better with
>> HTTP/2 on port 100, then that's just fine.
>There are a lot of existing programs, other than the few leading
>browsers, that interpret "http://" URLs that way. Your proposal will
>break them.

Nope, it will work just fine.

If the user-agent doesn't know about HTTP/2, it will use HTTP/1 just
like always.

If it knows about HTTP/2 and can fetch the content with HTTP/2 because
the upstream indicated this, it will just work.

If it cannot fetch it with HTTP/2, despite upstream indication (firewall
etc.) It will fall back to HTTP/1 and maybe cache this info for some
amount of time to save time.

The only thing my proposal does not allow you to do, is deploy an
HTTP/2 only site, but given how few IPv6 only sites there are, I
don't think that is going to be a problem for anybody.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 21:31:32 UTC