W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions

From: Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:29:00 +0800
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <d013754d-366a-0fb2-c80d-75875697b1d5@warmcat.com>

On 20/03/2019 18:05, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Lots to think about here.  Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for discussing it on the list.

> I have a few fairly basic questions about the goals of the draft.
> Why do you need to use both :protocol and a setting?  Isn't SETTINGS_ENABLE_CONNECT_PROTOCOL plus the new values for :protocol enough?
> How does a :protocol of bytestream differ from a plan CONNECT?

Putting datagram thing to one side, perhaps I missed it but it seems it 
doesn't buy anything compared to RFC8441:


That already has the same idea of CONNECT-ing the stream to be 
different, non-http transport over stream DATA frames.  Although RFC8441 
is focused on transporting websockets, it defines an upgrade name 
registry so you can upgrade to something else (Section 9.2).

Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2019 10:29:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 20 March 2019 10:29:35 UTC