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

Re: HTTP/2.0 protocol identifier string (#323)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 21:55:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXYPHmm2cEdd7f6YqoBirKMGwGzCmE1pMT+xyE+L0KJig@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 16 November 2013 21:47, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>> Those who have been following the ALPN drama might find this
>> attractive.  Does anyone find this change objectionable?
>
> Abbreviating this far and with the ALPN guys not wanting to use binary
> token prohibits ALPN being used for sub-versions of HTTP/2.x.
>  Do we consider that to be a good or bad thing?

I don't think so.  "h2.1" or "h21" could easily work for HTTP/2.1.

> Where can we find the details substantiating those claims of backward
> compatibility and that the "HTTP/2.0" string is causing trouble?

The TLS WG list, or here:
https://www.imperialviolet.org/2013/10/07/f5update.html

> What is ALPN requiring of the other protocols to meet this problem?

I don't understand the question.

> What is expected to happen with other h* / H* protocols?
>  HTCP-over-TLS for example?

Despite appearances, we aren't defining a prefix.  The use of "h2-09"
would be an unsafe, off-the-books thing that has no guarantees of
uniqueness.  Unless it sees wide deployment, in which case we can
register it to avoid that issue.

Other protocols would be unable to use "h2", since we got there first.
 (They can have "H2" if they are crazy enough.)
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 05:56:20 UTC

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