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

Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 20:04:08 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcHWsBF8YKHeZ-uvYeu3_ZSB1MriCU9uvKFOBvPgs10JQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Yup.

-=R
On Nov 19, 2013 8:02 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> So I'm interpreting this as a two-part proto-proposal --
>
> a) don't constrain the URI scheme for HTTP/2
> b) develop opportunistic encryption of some sort (issue #315).
>
> Is that accurate?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> On 20/11/2013, at 2:57 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How about:
> > HTTPS schemed URLs MUST be sent on an authenticated TLS channel.
> > HTTP schemed URLs MAY be sent as unencrypted HTTP2 plaintext, or may be
> sent over a TLS channel.
> >
> > If a server does not wish to handle HTTP schemed URLs over a TLS
> channel, it MUST reject these requests with a RST_STREAM or GOAWAY with an
> error code that indicates that the server does not support HTTP schemed
> URLs on port 443.
> > -=R
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:43 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> > >[snip]
> > > No one has yet proposed that we mandate implementing HTTP/2.0
> *without* TLS yet -- we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. Talking
> about "subverting the standards process" is thus WAY too premature.
> > >
> >
> > Honestly, I'm close to this, but *only* over a new dedicated port. To
> > be clear, as an application developer building on top of HTTP/2, I
> > want to be able, should I so choose, to rely on the ability to use
> > plain text http/2 and do not want a handful of user-agent developers
> > to make that decision for me. That said, however, I recognize the
> > challenges with making plaintext HTTP/2 over port 80 a mandatory to
> > implement thing, therefore, mandatory to implement over a new
> > dedicated port would appear to be a reasonable compromise option.
> >
> > - James
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 04:04:35 UTC

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