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

Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs

From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 21:36:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNot1JtXAnv-UshF7Oza6-mfSqCbECE0SVKE7QpCGcpg5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
there is no requirement on which peer sends first, so there really can't be
a handshake even as part of the initial settings and/or magic bits.. an
upgrade of a running session perhaps, but not a negotiation. *PN ftw.


On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:

>
> right, so if we decide that HTTP/2.0 won't be forced to go over TLS, then
> we can't rely on ALPN even being there.
>
> At that point it would be problematic to assume a mapping between port and
> version.  Much easier and more deterministic to put a version field back
> into (at least) the initial message(s).
>
> Adrien
>
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> To: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
> Cc: "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>; "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>;
> "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: 6/12/2013 1:27:17 p.m.
> Subject: Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs
>
>> On 5 December 2013 15:31, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  is there no version transmitted anywhere (outside of ALPN).... or are we
>>>  going to rely on ALPN to communicate that?
>>>
>>
>> ALPN carries all the important and relevant version information, yes.
>>
>> Version information is all carried in the identifier string (currently
>> "HTTP/2.0"). This same identifier is used in ALPN and Upgrade (and
>> Alt-Svc and DNS and whatever other places we choose to signal support
>> of HTTP/2.0).
>>
>> Note that this is all outside of the protocol, and is always required
>> to be present, though we acknowledge that the presence of the
>> identifier might be implicit (as it would be in the port 100
>> proposal).
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 02:36:57 UTC

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