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

Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:39:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVTOGLywRqh2Q1F-5EvhT=0VOMWAkH5daz0c_5HqGDtyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 5 December 2013 00:59, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> So how would the negotiation of the minor version be done?

For which version(s)?

For HTTP/1.x, the negotiation between HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/1.0 (and 0.9)
uses rules already established.

For HTTP/2.x, the negotiation between HTTP/2.0 and a hypothetical
HTTP/2.1 would use ALPN and "h2" and maybe "h2.1".  Any unique string
would suffice.

> I don’t see how that is done in HTTP/2.0 (except when upgrading from 1.1).

Yes, HTTP/2.0 explicitly doesn't allow version negotiation "within"
the protocol.  We have ALPN and intend to use it ...and nothing else.

> Maybe it is worth adding a section that explains the protocol evolution model of HTTP/2.0.

Like this?

  Any new, incompatible version of HTTP will use a different
identifier string.  For instance, a hypothetical HTTP/2.1 might be
identified by the string "DUCK".
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 17:40:13 UTC

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