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

Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:57:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeC=Bt2JVoXi2Aj963=62D0tMQYrMVwqGY_MdiQgEdMMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
How about:
HTTPS schemed URLs MUST be sent on an authenticated TLS channel.
HTTP schemed URLs MAY be sent as unencrypted HTTP2 plaintext, or may be
sent over a TLS channel.

If a server does not wish to handle HTTP schemed URLs over a TLS channel,
it MUST reject these requests with a RST_STREAM or GOAWAY with an error
code that indicates that the server does not support HTTP schemed URLs on
port 443.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:43 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 03:58:01 UTC

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