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

Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:42:09 +1300
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <3bc1f270b72ec98b0826b84e34aa630d@treenet.co.nz>
On 2013-12-06 08:07, 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.

Not necessarily. There are several changes which only make sense in a 
pure-2.0 end-to-end connection. Such as dropping Cookies and converting 
Session Cookie values to a HTTP layer frame header.
We cannot do this at all right now, but can prepare 2.0 extension points 
for defining it in a 2.1 update in 5-20 years time.


> I don’t agree that spending a few cycles on thinking about this would
> not add value.
> However, it also seems to me that SETTINGS already provides a good way
> forward for this kind of smooth evolution.
> If people share the gut feeling that that’s true, the needed cycles
> may already have been spent.

+1.

We need to concentrate on making 2.0 more efficient without the 
compression overheads, and work on updating/replacing RFC 2660 with 2.0 
mechanisms.

Amos
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 22:42:32 UTC

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