W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: reserved flags and extensions

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:21:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX2+ZNETQi_nbMbd-TAB7DYQszchP5Ki3g_N2RfM+pGPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13 July 2014 10:37, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
>> If we want a different framing, we should neg^H^H^H advertise it not in
>> HTTP/2?s SETTINGS frame, but in ALPN/Upgrade and call it HTTP/3 or HTTP/2.1.
>
> The problem here is that it may quickly require a large number of versions
> especially if multiple extensions are defined.

I think that this is the path we walk.  Anything major will need a new
ALPN tag.  I would certainly advise people that this is better than
something else.

That said, I'm not particular sympathetic to the use case of having an
intermediary that isn't really a participant in the protocol.  I know
this happens, but I think that the onus is on those entities to deal
with the consequences of the protocol, in all its aspects.  That means
not passing on settings (and frames, etc...) they don't understand.
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2014 20:21:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC