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: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:32:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbc4jEyypYSR5gZhdukV84iO-W1JPeg3_bVLFngysCZO9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
On Nov 17, 2013 8:22 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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...?
>

Addresses other than .local and RFC1918.

- james

> 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 04:32:30 UTC

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