W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: WebSocket2

From: Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:36:35 +0300 (EEST)
Message-Id: <201610011936.u91JaZlG008986@shell.siilo.fmi.fi>
To: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
CC: Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>: (Sat Oct  1 21:20:38 2016)
<...>
> require baking WebSocket2 directly into HTTP/2, the way it is now,
> WebSocket2 should run over HTTP/2 with minimal resistance since we do not
> introduce new settings or HTTP/2 frame types.  HTTP/2 was designed from the
> very beginning to not support 2 way streaming like websocket provides
> currently for HTTP/1.1.  I think the resistance would be great if adding
> WebSocket2 requires adding to the actual HTTP/2 specification.
<...>

I interpreter Settings to be extension point. It does not touch HTTP/2
specification.

Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540

5.5.  Extending HTTP/2
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-5.5

|   This document doesn't mandate a specific method for negotiating the
|   use of an extension but notes that a setting (Section 6.5.2) could be
|   used for that purpose.  If both peers set a value that indicates
|   willingness to use the extension, then the extension can be used.  If
|   a setting is used for extension negotiation, the initial value MUST
|   be defined in such a fashion that the extension is initially
|   disabled.

11.3.  Settings Registry
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-11.3

|   This document establishes a registry for HTTP/2 settings.  The
|   "HTTP/2 Settings" registry manages a 16-bit space.  The "HTTP/2
|   Settings" registry operates under the "Expert Review" policy
|   [RFC5226] for values in the range from 0x0000 to 0xefff, with values
|   between and 0xf000 and 0xffff being reserved for Experimental Use.


How something (registeration) which is just "Expert Review" can be considered
to be change of actual HTTP/2 specification ?

/ Kari Hurtta
Received on Saturday, 1 October 2016 19:37:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 1 October 2016 19:37:09 UTC