Re: HTTP 1.1 --> 2.0 Upgrade

Hi James,

On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 21:59 -0700, James M Snell wrote:
> That is, I as an implementor am not going to be required to do this
> upgrade dance with every new connection, regardless of how it actually
> happens... right?

If we define something on port 80 that uses Http Upgrade, then likely
you will - like websockets does. That's an argument against http
upgrade. I would like to think some mechanism that lets you explicitly
know that http/2 is in use on another port would be preferable and let
you skip that dance once discovery is complete (i.e. dns srv and/or
alternate-protocol). I don't think sending http/2 on port 80 without
upgrade would ever be viable due to proxies etc..

>  http2://www.example.com that operates on a different default port is 

a new scheme is out of scope of the proposed charter as far as I
understand it as the charter expects HTTP/2 to retain the existing URI
semantics of HTTP/1.1.