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

Re: h2 use of Upgrade

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 15:37:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeMORrog6Rm=ahADXWCgrF94T186eBy-Jp3Rp09YYJ+RQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Not in the ALPN-based connectivity case, at least, implying different
codepaths (and a required increase in verbosity near the start of the
communication) for upgrade vs ALPN-based negotiation.

Not specifying the ALPN token is also different in the upgrade case as the
ALPN token might indicate more information in the future about what
extensions are available, etc. which isn't something conveyed by settings
alone.
For anyone wishing to have equivalent functionality/latency for upgrade as
with ALPN or its future replacements, it would be good to offer the ALPN
token in there somewhere.
 -=R


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Roberto Peon wrote:
>
> > Roy--
> > Assuming that we went with upgrade as you specify, and we needed to
> specify a different profile (e.g. HTTP2 but with lower default limits on
> the various settings), how would that be negotiated?
>
> Wouldn't that be in the HTTP2-Settings field?
>
> ....Roy
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 22:38:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC