- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:43:23 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >[snip] > No one has yet proposed that we mandate implementing HTTP/2.0 *without* TLS yet -- we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. Talking about "subverting the standards process" is thus WAY too premature. > Honestly, I'm close to this, but *only* over a new dedicated port. To be clear, as an application developer building on top of HTTP/2, I want to be able, should I so choose, to rely on the ability to use plain text http/2 and do not want a handful of user-agent developers to make that decision for me. That said, however, I recognize the challenges with making plaintext HTTP/2 over port 80 a mandatory to implement thing, therefore, mandatory to implement over a new dedicated port would appear to be a reasonable compromise option. - James
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 03:44:10 UTC