- From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:17:27 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark, On 10/23/12 4:03 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > The question for us right now is what requirements we want to place upon that work. Currently, I have: > > ---8<--- > TLS Working Group Chairs, > > This is a request from the HTTPbis Working Group for you to commence work upon a mechanism that allows clients and servers to negotiate the particular application protocol to use once the session is established. > > Our use case is for HTTP/2.0 in conjunction with HTTP URIs; rather than defining a new port, which incurs both performance and deployment penalties, a negotiation mechanism would allow for better deployment of HTTP/2.0 for HTTPS URIs. > > We would expect such a mechanism to allow the client and server to negotiate the use of one of potentially many such protocols (in our case, HTTP/1.x and HTTP/2.x), identified by tokens, and falling back to a default for the port in use (in our case, HTTP/1.x) when either side doesn't support negotiation, or an agreement can't be found. > > We also note existing work in this area: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg-04 > > The HTTPbis Working Group will be happy to coordinate schedules, review drafts and provide further input as required. > > --->8--- > It's a little odd having to have one working group liaise a request to another working group, but alright. Traditionally we do not name individual drafts in liaisons, and I suggest we not do that in this case, as there are posted alternatives. Eliot
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 17:17:56 UTC