- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:15:40 +1100
- To: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
- Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Andrei Popov" <Andrei.Popov@microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 29/10/2013, at 4:57 AM, "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> wrote: > [Joe] This may be part of the disconnect. The ALPN extension was not designed to be solely used by the HTTPbis framework. At this point I don't think it is safe to assume that everything in the registry will be relevant to HTTPbis. Is this a problem for HTTPbis? Well, it's an interesting question. We need a registry that the various things can point to. If some of the contents of this registry aren't appropriate, we might need to have a separate registry. Which means that people would have to do *two* registrations, which seems like busy work. What if you didn't have any registry at all -- what if the name space of possible ALPN tokens being used was scoped by the port in use? Just thinking out loud. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 05:16:11 UTC