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

Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs

From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:59:42 +0100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7FBC87A7-6A2C-4D37-B0C2-FEF9810B03DB@tzi.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On 05 Dec 2013, at 05:44, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Thinking about this, is it appropriate to specify the minor protocol version (which implies compatibility on the wire) in the ALPN identifier?

So how would the negotiation of the minor version be done?
I dont see how that is done in HTTP/2.0 (except when upgrading from 1.1).

Maybe it is worth adding a section that explains the protocol evolution model of HTTP/2.0.
(My benchmark case here would be plugging in a different compression scheme for 2.1.)

(If the result of such a discussion is that ALPN is a good way to indicate HTTP/2.1 capability early and upfront, we should plan now for the tokens that the HTTP/2.xes get.)

Gre, Carsten
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 09:00:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:20 UTC