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

Re: #385: HTTP2 Upgrade / Negotiation

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:21:01 +1100
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <95A549EF-73F0-4E94-9D64-24193E5E5C79@mnot.net>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>

On 24/10/2012, at 4:17 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> 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.

OK, I think they're aware of it anyway. :)


Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 03:21:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:07 UTC