W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: A proposal

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 14:11:31 +1100
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Message-Id: <74A18F14-CC9D-4184-98FA-F3B2634826F3@mnot.net>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>

On 18/11/2013, at 2:09 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well,  from what I've seen in this thread so far, only the idea of a new url scheme seems unpopular.  The idea of having a dedicated port for plaintext http/2 has received several mentions of support. Nevertheless,  the proposal was relevant to the conversation so I brought it up again.  Definitely seems like positions haven't changed so I'll go ahead and not mention it again.

Yep, a new port hasn't been ruled out, and there's been some interest in the past. 

Personally, I suspect that *if* we have a mechanism to direct a connection to anther host or port (whether that's Alt-Svc or something completely different), it might make sense to define a default port for it, to make firewalls' jobs easier.


Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 03:11:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:20 UTC