IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Tue, 26 February 2013 03:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB12421E816D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:57:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.327
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.272, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hRS718x4cip7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01FF521F91B7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:57:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UABdM-0002Vv-93 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 03:55:16 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 03:55:16 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UABdM-0002Vv-93@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UABd4-0001FE-3T for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 03:54:58 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1UABd2-00089C-Vw for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 03:54:58 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r1Q3sR2H029122; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 04:54:27 +0100
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 04:54:27 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130226035427.GB27784@1wt.eu>
References: <B0FC9D1E-08EF-4275-9851-C8F33F24FF00@mnot.net> <20130222070214.GA14218@1wt.eu> <20D9182A-7D80-41A3-B656-E30485BF5751@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20D9182A-7D80-41A3-B656-E30485BF5751@mnot.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.758, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.704, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UABd2-00089C-Vw 0f492d13684efca27dc3de813bebef44
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130226035427.GB27784@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16816
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Hi Mark,

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:56:09AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> On 22/02/2013, at 6:02 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> 
> > I'm still having a problem with the principle behind 2b : when you
> > pass through transparent intercepting proxies, by definition you're
> > not aware of it. So even if 2a worked for the first connection, it
> > does not preclude that 2b will work for the second one. Nor the DNS
> > will BTW.
> 
> Sorry, I wasn't clear; that would be for cases where you had a high degree of
> confidence that not only was HTTP/2.0 able to be spoken, but where you have
> an even higher degree of confidence that HTTP/1.x is NOT; e.g., a separate
> port (that you might have discovered through DNS, for example).

Then if that's to be used on a different port, we probably don't need
to check how servers respond to this magic on port 80.

Willy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email