- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:50:47 +0200
- To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 01:20:21PM +0200, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > <hat type='AD'/> > > On 3/25/12 12:59 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <4F6E5D90.9050904@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes: > > > >>> Since it's possible to layer different (future) versions of HTTP on top > >>> of SPDY, don't we need the ":version" header to preserve all > >>> information? And similarly, we can conceivably handle different schemes > >>> over SPDY, such as https (the obvious one), http, ws, wss, etc, so I > >>> think including ":scheme" is important. > >> > >> If we see SPDY as a transport layer only yes; if we consider it > >> HTTP/2.0; maybe not. > > > > Ok, can we just settle this once and for all ? > > That's the point of the recent recharter to the HTTPBIS WG: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charter/ > > Specifically, if people have proposals, encourage them to write > Internet-Drafts. :) Amos and I are currently working on such a proposal. Poul-Henning, feel free to join if you'd like. Cheers, Willy
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 13:51:28 UTC