Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is out?
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 04 October 2017 00:15 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C0C132F2E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7cmZhrMc-Yym for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x230.google.com (mail-oi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A409713232C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x230.google.com with SMTP id u130so17101235oib.11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 17:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=vL56PvEAMHK/UpKZiAgDfMoRn5Iazkg5e7+XQ4/pVsw=; b=TKQTV/9tqpFeZXqZwxffrTQtJSCin5PB5DzQV3JVnAanMStciXefBfYFfMyFHKrapi 5/GrhyNvY2zo7vG2ZiCXi2AF5zHcNYmEv5ADL+TERNh8vFQLqakS8BUp936mnX6w7h3d dpt3bsx425C7tQQxPh68KQQj/En1Jt51kS9ou5c8QJBahray7axJOjim/GPiaJiwy5+i TTVwvdCXyBkKyvw/88DayKq4Z3NCNwGioolpm7yt0m4yXF2tpHM9RnzQIfVvwq8Nj4b7 8pNnd8rAPxpd6UuYIIbyb5DcipHslJswaDAmv0PdVRERwFq15Svsu2CMvQpsfi/M1JfN Us6g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=vL56PvEAMHK/UpKZiAgDfMoRn5Iazkg5e7+XQ4/pVsw=; b=Y0Ti69S3xA3a7iUMGXXKCNIkDTdruaFkI5JCs8KPoObrPqvJ3G3ARtTRKRztVHVCMZ ELiT8F8qByLzezPYivtlPEodig1GkQmuKOIWsDAbwT66zr5O2iXsYbQS3d3I7YgX24kc wGfjX/8gPWrUEfmE8wg7s2Jl9NdDwWnOMpDTdHCZHDWsxHBbT3DfiDdIg9SKRfIkGO/7 IehGYDAG2pCzJo0qRe+joNKSNVwiuKGXKOIg0Bw0xtx1isfHDQHJCI3YLkrbfoRmolgK lCTeoEhKsrVKMoYNfmh4izsjlcGDLqHZN4xRQyMcXKDC0PKiJo9Z1/MYmSq1/29Sq6uS 6ooA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUBx0HalQ3UrY+BdXA514UDiMHRi1cYw+XXr5OSRIa7zHg8QiuR prDJtBjgahZ++KVGjM2FZ2/74h5OoUOm363ZW01f7xpu
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QDpHuyJ4KxnzmJZd8nRti9uYyk6oIsi/CR7GHEAbk6e3phn2WE+09wQ1Tod5xa9q0zza/SRBhg7V283y6FZlC0=
X-Received: by 10.157.91.61 with SMTP id x58mr5369656oth.89.1507076118960; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 17:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.3.107 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <25244.1507074594@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
References: <561.1507067891@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CABkgnnUZxrNb0EsepdE4RAWvdMdX_HJ4+Km3EjUzoL0bdZtqsA@mail.gmail.com> <25244.1507074594@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 17:15:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWymgZTiWwWSL64Ua7SDLZ0PNm6DXbqo5CcNLPGHBbVzA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is out?
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VIucssM2DXYttZf_VtaJ7oBrCMw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:15:21 -0000
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote: > Ideally, I'd reference a document which was something like "restricted http2" > or "http2 dumbed down to http1.1" or "http2 lite" or some such. > That document would get updated now and then to accomodate new issues. We do have a draft of that document, but it would need more effort to turn into something that could be referenced. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-montenegro-httpbis-h2ot-profile > We need one request to go through first, and then more or less, the rest > could be handled concurrently. So wait for the first request to complete before making the others. I'm not sure that I see the problem here.
- should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is out? Michael Richardson
- Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is … Martin Thomson
- Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is … Michael Richardson
- Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is … Martin Thomson
- Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is … Patrick McManus
- Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is … Toerless Eckert
- Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is … Patrick McManus
- Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is … Toerless Eckert
- Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is … Patrick McManus
- Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is … Toerless Eckert
- Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is … Lloyd Wood
- Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is … Eliot Lear
- Re: should we specify HTTP/1.1 now that HTTP2 is … Michael Richardson