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

Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies

From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 20:33:02 +0000
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
CC: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ddc3fb03eaff41c6b084025e22cbbbb4@BY2PR03MB025.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Which still might be a valid option, even if as Roberto points out it's not the ideal area of the solution space.  Similar to Upgrade, the first request(s) is/are made using vanilla HTTP plus any non-breaking extensions.  After one RTT, you know which breaking extensions are safe to use.

Sent from Windows Mail

From: Eliot Lear<mailto:lear@cisco.com>
Sent: ?Wednesday?, ?October? ?2?, ?2013 ?11?:?02? ?AM
To: Eliot Lear<mailto:lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop<mailto:Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Amos Jeffries<mailto:squid3@treenet.co.nz>, Roberto Peon<mailto:grmocg@gmail.com>, James M Snell<mailto:jasnell@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org<mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>


On 10/2/13 7:33 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Why not just define an optional capabilities exchange mechanism on Channel 0?


Having seen Roberto's design constraint, nevermind.
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 20:33:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC