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 21:20:32 +0000
To: "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <emf532a985-1e88-4034-963a-101f5f9a59c9@bodybag>

by current definitions of what constitutes minor vs major version 
numbers, 2.1 would be compatible with 2.2.  If it isn't you'll call it 
3.0.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>
To: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>; "HTTP Working Group" 
<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 6/12/2013 6:49:44 a.m.
Subject: Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs
>>  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 21:20:51 UTC

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