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

+1

> From: adrien@qbik.com
> To: jasnell@gmail.com; mnot@mnot.net
> CC: derhoermi@gmx.net; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 04:08:49 +0000
> Subject: Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the "open" internet
> 
> 
> my 2c is that http/2.0 (TLS or not) is enough of a departure from http, 
> that trying to put plaintext http/2.0 over port 80 will just be an 
> impossible nightmare.
> 
> We could consider that http/2.0 is an entirely new protocol. It just has 
> the same purpose as and contains (as a subset) the semantics of http/1.1 
> and we intend it to replace 1.1.
> 
> So if what is being proposed here is that http/2.0 uses another port and 
> https/2.0 uses port 443 enabled by NPN/ALPN etc then I'm happy with 
> that.
> 
> Adrien
> 
> 
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>
> To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
> Cc: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>; "HTTP Working Group" 
> <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: 20/11/2013 4:43:23 p.m.
> Subject: Re: Call for Proposals re: #314 HTTP2 and http:// URIs on the 
> "open" internet
> >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
> >
> 
>