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

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 8.1.2.1 Request Header Fields | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-latest, 5.5 Extending HTTP/2

From: Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:24:30 +0900
Message-ID: <CABihn6EPijyfx8yrCQY+uO61QHzcYp_uvPAX_ymE5RN4CFc7FA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTPBIS working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>
> In this case, it's probably sufficient to rely on the server
> indication alone, since the client is going to be the one doing the
> indication.  At that point, game on.

Thank you, you are right.

The server knows the HTTP/2 connection is capable of WS OVER HTTP/2 when it
receives a SETTINGS frame with WS_CAPABLE.
The client knows the HTTP/2 connection is capable of WS OVER HTTP/2 when
the handshake succeeds.

Then we need only client => server SETTINGS frame with WS_CPABABLE.



On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 16 July 2014 18:38, Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com> wrote:
> > Martin, does that look correct to you?
>
> In this case, it's probably sufficient to rely on the server
> indication alone, since the client is going to be the one doing the
> indication.  At that point, game on.
>
> There's some advantage in having the ALPN tag here, because you avoid
> the extra round trip, but that's something I'll leave you to ponder.
>
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 06:25:00 UTC

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