- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:20:21 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "William Chan (ιζΊζ)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
<hat type='AD'/> On 3/25/12 12:59 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <4F6E5D90.9050904@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes: > >>> Since it's possible to layer different (future) versions of HTTP on top >>> of SPDY, don't we need the ":version" header to preserve all >>> information? And similarly, we can conceivably handle different schemes >>> over SPDY, such as https (the obvious one), http, ws, wss, etc, so I >>> think including ":scheme" is important. >> >> If we see SPDY as a transport layer only yes; if we consider it >> HTTP/2.0; maybe not. > > Ok, can we just settle this once and for all ? That's the point of the recent recharter to the HTTPBIS WG: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charter/ Specifically, if people have proposals, encourage them to write Internet-Drafts. :) Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 11:20:51 UTC