Re: Large Frame Proposal

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:30 AM, <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:

> Hi Roberto-
>
> On Wednesday,09 July 2014 08:53, grmocg@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
> wrote:
> >> Don't forget that some of us are going to be using IE a
> >> lot more in future, if that lets us use HTTP/2 without TLS.
>
> We likely fall into that category as well.
>
> > Sure, good luck with that 85% success rate :)
> > Makes sense on an intranet. Not so much on the wild,
> > wild internet, unless things have substantially changed.
> > -=R
>
> Success rate of what?  Are you referring to IE?  Does that browser have a
> particular success rate issue?  Or are you referring to an issue with
> clear-text HTTP?  Clearly I am missing some context.  If this was already
> discussed on-list and you can just point me to the discussion I'll gladly
> go read it.
>

The success rate is HTTP Upgrade in cleartext over the web as tested with a
single Google server and Google Chrome clients in an experiment. And 85%
was for a separate port. For port 80, it was 63%. Details here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg05593.html. More
general analysis at my blog:
https://insouciant.org/tech/http-slash-2-considerations-and-tradeoffs/#Upgrade,
including discussions of other deployment options and their success rates.


>
> Thanks.
>
> -keith
>
> This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient.
> Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be
> privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this
> communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this
> message and then delete it from your system.
>