W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Upgrade status for impl draft 1

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:11:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbcs_KOZg6d=S7=oPutDRVhPZS_5GDxROwYL62XMDbSE3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
There are two too many options in my opinion but I can live with this for
now.
On Feb 21, 2013 1:13 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Based upon discussion both at the Interim and subsequently, this is where
> I think we are for the upgrade/negotiation process, at least in terms of
> the 1st implementation draft:
>
> 1. HTTPS URLs
>    - use NPN (or its replacement); uses OPAQUE TOKEN to negotiate
>    - NO magic
>    - SETTINGS first
>
> 2. HTTP URLs
>
>   a. existing connection / new connection without context
>       - Upgrade Dance; uses OPAQUE TOKEN to negotiate
>       - NO magic
>       - SETTINGS first
>
>   b. new connection with context (e.g., because you used DNS hint, header
> hint, prior knowledge)
>      - NO upgrade dance
>      - Magic
>      - SETTINGS first
>
> The decision as to whether to use 2(a) or 2(b) in a particular situation
> is up to implementations, but of course we'll give (non-normative) guidance.
>
> Does this make sense to everyone?
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 15:12:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 February 2013 15:12:29 GMT