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

Re: something I don't get about the current plan...

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:22:36 +1100
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <948AD59C-A28A-4AF3-A3F3-9F165D885C88@mnot.net>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

On 18/11/2013, at 3:19 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm good with this if, and only if, we also take the step of defining
> a separate default port for plaintext http/2 for all other cases.

"all other cases" being...?

At this point in time, I'm looking at this through the lens of <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/314> -- i.e., what we say, if anything, about browsers on the "open" Web. 

There are a lot of interdependencies on other things, but I'm not sure I get what's motivating this one for you.

Cheers,


P.S. The resolution to that issue *could* come in the form of a separate document, not anything in HTTP/2 itself. E.g., a "how browsers use HTTP" RFC.


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 04:22:57 UTC

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