- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 20:44:50 +0200
- To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, K.Morgan@iaea.org
- CC: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-07-09 19:15, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:30 AM, <K.Morgan@iaea.org > <mailto:K.Morgan@iaea.org>> wrote: > > Hi Roberto- > > On Wednesday,09 July 2014 08:53, grmocg@gmail.com > <mailto:grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Matthew Kerwin > <matthew@kerwin.net.au <mailto: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. > ... It would be interesting to repeat that experiment. It's now 4.5 years later, and deploying Websockets may have caused broken code to be fixed. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 18:45:43 UTC