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 18:49:44 +0100
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9410CC66-C9AF-4D38-9ADE-08B983C66BA7@tzi.org>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> 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.

Works for me.
(Thinking about how the new identifiers will look like still doesn’t hurt.)

>  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”.

Well, is HTTP/2.1 going to be “incompatible” with HTTP/2.0?
(Mark seems to think there is some form of compatibility as long as we don’t change the major version.
That’s why I’d like to see something written up about the evolution model, even if it is by nature going to be tentative.)

Grüße, Carsten
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 17:50:15 UTC

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