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: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 04:08:49 +0000
To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em53074765-5edb-410a-a8c5-498043631dda@bodybag>

my 2c is that http/2.0 (TLS or not) is enough of a departure from http, 
that trying to put plaintext http/2.0 over port 80 will just be an 
impossible nightmare.

We could consider that http/2.0 is an entirely new protocol. It just has 
the same purpose as and contains (as a subset) the semantics of http/1.1 
and we intend it to replace 1.1.

So if what is being proposed here is that http/2.0 uses another port and 
https/2.0 uses port 443 enabled by NPN/ALPN etc then I'm happy with 
that.

Adrien



------ Original Message ------
From: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>; "HTTP Working Group" 
<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 20/11/2013 4:43:23 p.m.
Subject: Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the 
"open" internet
>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
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 04:08:36 UTC

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