- From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:05:15 -0500
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
James, On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:43 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > … > 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. My concern with a new port is that how do you specify that http://example.com:8100/somefile.html should use HTTP/2.0? I’m not convinced that HTTP/2.0 over port 80 is dead just yet - there are some upgrade paths that haven’t been tested with proxies (and boy I would love to see a list of ‘broken’ proxies that I can test with) that might map a path forward. _______________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 13:05:45 UTC