- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:21:01 +1100
- To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24/10/2012, at 4:17 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote: > Mark, > > On 10/23/12 4:03 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> The question for us right now is what requirements we want to place upon that work. Currently, I have: >> >> ---8<--- >> TLS Working Group Chairs, >> >> This is a request from the HTTPbis Working Group for you to commence work upon a mechanism that allows clients and servers to negotiate the particular application protocol to use once the session is established. >> >> Our use case is for HTTP/2.0 in conjunction with HTTP URIs; rather than defining a new port, which incurs both performance and deployment penalties, a negotiation mechanism would allow for better deployment of HTTP/2.0 for HTTPS URIs. >> >> We would expect such a mechanism to allow the client and server to negotiate the use of one of potentially many such protocols (in our case, HTTP/1.x and HTTP/2.x), identified by tokens, and falling back to a default for the port in use (in our case, HTTP/1.x) when either side doesn't support negotiation, or an agreement can't be found. >> >> We also note existing work in this area: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg-04 >> >> The HTTPbis Working Group will be happy to coordinate schedules, review drafts and provide further input as required. >> >> --->8--- >> > > It's a little odd having to have one working group liaise a request to > another working group, but alright. Traditionally we do not name > individual drafts in liaisons, and I suggest we not do that in this > case, as there are posted alternatives. OK, I think they're aware of it anyway. :) Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 03:21:27 UTC