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

Re: should tools like wget implement HTTP 2.0?

From: Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 14:57:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CANmPAYFhAyNQkNKpHbGp=puQKki2-wMKUuQR3PoBTC9aesAN0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sorry I thought by opportunistic encryption we were referring to Mark's
Internet Draft --
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http2-encryption-00.


On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:

> On Nov 3, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On 3 November 2013 08:59,  <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Is there any reason why HTTP file transfer clients like curl and wget
>> should
>> > ever implement 2.0?
>>
>> That's not our choice.  Though I would suggest that some of the wget
>> modes of operation would benefit; and there are potentially some
>> advantages to be gained from having opportunistic encryption for http:
>> resources.
>>
>
> Opportunistic encryption would be great if it gets in and I agree that
> then there is a benefit for simple file transfers.
>
>
> FWIW, HTTP/1.1 already has opportunistic encryption - see RFC 2817.
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
>
>
Received on Sunday, 3 November 2013 22:58:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:19 UTC