Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs

On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:00, Martin Thomson <> wrote:

> If it turns out to be compatible, then we'll work something out.
> [..] Plotting out a path for compatible
> changes doesn't really add value.  That said, feel free to propose
> something.

Clearly, if we already knew what needs to be changed, wed do it now.
So this is preparing for the unknown.  
I dont agree that spending a few cycles on thinking about this would not add value.
However, it also seems to me that SETTINGS already provides a good way forward for this kind of smooth evolution.
If people share the gut feeling that thats true, the needed cycles may already have been spent.

The more important thing is actually agreeing that ALPN labels are cheap and this is indeed the way forward for changes that go beyond what can be done with a SETTINGS-like mechanism.  I.e., we assume HTTP/2.x will always be carried in something that provides out-of-band negotiation (and something extra would need to be done for, say, the port 100 idea).

Gre, Carsten

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 19:08:01 UTC