W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ?

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:20:21 +0200
Message-ID: <4F6EFF75.2070101@stpeter.im>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ)" <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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:57 GMT