- From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:12:34 -0500
- To: Yoav Nir <synp71@live.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yoav, On Nov 20, 2013, at 2:50 PM, Yoav Nir <synp71@live.com> wrote: > ... > That info will be interesting. I worry, though, that it's a huge undertaking to get a complete picture because of the long tail. I’m less concerned about getting a 100% complete picture and more wanting to get a general picture based on proxies that are popular and/or known to have issues. I am under no illusion (delusion? :) that we will be able to do HTTP/2.0 upgrade over current proxies. Rather, I want to know whether a HTTP/2.0 client can successfully continue to function with HTTP/1.1 proxies - can we reliably either a) know that we can attempt an upgrade or b) recover from a failed upgrade? Answering those questions will determine whether it is feasible to support plain text HTTP/2.0 on port 80 and/or whether we would really need a new URI scheme to differentiate between HTTP/1.x and HTTP/2.0. I’m hopeful that the answer is actually *yes* since the “failure” mode for HTTP/2.0 upgrades is just using HTTP/1.1, vs. WebSockets and other similar extensions that rely on upgrade to work at all. In short (and I apologize for paraphrasing): Failure IS an option. We just need to know *how* HTTP/2.0 upgrade will fail to determine if it would prevent implementors from supporting plain text HTTP/2.0 over the Internet. _______________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 20:13:03 UTC