- From: Adam Rice <ricea@chromium.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 13:21:35 +0900
- To: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
- Cc: Bence Béky <bnc@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 04:22:08 UTC
On 21 November 2017 at 04:20, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> wrote: > > the client needs to wait because the draft changes the definition of > CONNECT.. you can't use the new definition against a server that hasn't > opted into it. Note that there is no technical requirement on the server > for a settings ack - the requirement is on when the client can send the > request. This might be 0.5 rtt or not, depending on the style of handshake. > It is the annoying part here driven by the simplicity of the design. I > think that's the right choice. > I'm concerned about this "wait an arbitrary amount of time before falling back" semantic. When we first implement it I expect to be falling back almost all of the time. In fact, most developers would probably have a better experience if we never attempted h2 at all. We could race an h2 connection with an h1 connection but that seems suboptimal.
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2017 04:22:08 UTC