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

So I'm interpreting this as a two-part proto-proposal --

a) don't constrain the URI scheme for HTTP/2
b) develop opportunistic encryption of some sort (issue #315).

Is that accurate?


On 20/11/2013, at 2:57 PM, Roberto Peon <> wrote:

> 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.
> -=R
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:43 PM, James M Snell <> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Mark Nottingham <> 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

Mark Nottingham

Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 04:02:41 UTC