Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs from Martin Thomson on 2013-12-05 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2013)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:41:42 -0800
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWW_7Xna5rd4v=1hKZKRd7Z7moG3j950r2odwA6g=pGAA@mail.gmail.com>

On 4 December 2013 20:44, 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?

We've talked about this: if we mess with things, new identifiers are
cheap.  Encoding semantics into version identifiers only leads to
pain.  Leave the space opaque.  If we want to specify new compatible
changes to the protocol, we can use a setting or something like that
if indicating its support is crucial.

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 17:42:13 UTC