Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard

Willy Tarreau <> Tue, 13 January 2015 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF66F1ACE52; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:31:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.356
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_IS_SMALL6=0.556, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wPS3bMkzbIi1; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:31:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A8E1ACE42; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 16:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id t0D0UtRT030354; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 01:30:55 +0100
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 01:30:55 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <>
To: "Constantine A. Murenin" <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.txt> (Hypertext Transfer Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 08:03:12 -0800
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 00:31:07 -0000


On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:09:38AM -0800, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> I am sincerely asking for the IETF to not approve HTTP/2 as a standard 
> without the compatibility issues as above being addressed first.  The 
> policy to abandon the http:// address scheme and adopt https:// will 
> only promote a significant link rot for the future generations to 
> experience well into the future (didn't we think TLS 1.0 was good 
> enough?), and will curtail independent and hobbyist operators.

Please note that the protocol *does* support http:// address scheme, it's
only that two browsers decided that they will not implement it. Let's hope
that they'll change their mind when HTTP/2 starts reaching normal users and
is no more limited to huge sites with lots of people to manage certificates.

To their defense, the last reported connection upgrade success rates were
rather low (80-90% or something like this) and it can take a few years for
broken intercepting proxies to be upgraded/fixed at ISPs. I don't remember
when that measure was done, I guess it was 3 years ago for WebSocket. But
I do still hope we'll see support for http:// over HTTP/2 in all browsers
when HTTP/2 becomes the most commonly deployed version.

Best regards,