- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:23:41 +1100
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Cc: IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 18 Feb 2014, at 8:52 pm, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote: > Replying to myself, I'd like to make one point clear: > > It is ABSOLUTELY okay to use SRV so long as we accept that in some > circumstances there will be some performance degradation, and that we > will need to sort versioning beyond h2. That latter issue implies some > IN BAND upgrade mechanism for h2->hN. In the case of TLS, we might > simply handle this with ALPN, but someone from the TLS side should think > about this in the context of a fast restart. This is what’s concerned me in the past. We’ve made a lot of decisions based upon the assumption that introducing h3…hn (as well as other protocol identifiers) won’t require adding more round trips. Now, with ALPN, that may be OK, but it doesn’t help for non-TLS deployments, such as they are. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2014 09:24:10 UTC