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

Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:26:50 +0100
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20131205202650.GA27966@1wt.eu>
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 08:07:30PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:00, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > If it turns out to be compatible, then we'll work something out.
> > 
> > [..] Plotting out a path for compatible
> > changes doesn't really add value.  That said, feel free to propose
> > something.
> 
> Clearly, if we already knew what needs to be changed, we?d do it now.
> So this is preparing for the unknown.  

I'd say that if the client supports both 2.0 and 2.1 and wishes to experiment
with a server supporting both versions, then both will advertise h2 and h2.1
(for example), so what needs to be documented is more how to pick the best
version when several ones are compatible between two agents.

I don't see why it would be useful to insist on pretending to be 2.0 when
connecting to a 2.0 and at the same time expect 2.1 to be transported if
you can't gain any benefit from this. I even fear that we could reintroduce
the 1.0/1.1 issues that proxies had to suffer about for decades by doing so.

Just my two cents,
Willy
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 20:27:24 UTC

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