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

Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 21:19:30 +0000
To: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em63490f4b-7578-402f-965f-fad129ad6c39@bodybag>


------ Original Message ------
From: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>

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

well.. this presumes we're only going to work inside a TLS framework.

Roll out the mandatory TLS argument again.

I don't think we can rely on only ALPN.


>
>>  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 21:19:50 UTC

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