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

Re: 2817 for TLS (was Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-09)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:48:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXrxoD7Fq=vGf_JgRw-MCU9NbHAw-4vNWndaU6NHW+Xqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 5 December 2013 11:42, James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com> wrote:
> Any server which supports 2817 and alpn would Just Work notwithstanding
> discussion here.

If only that were true.  It's true if the idea of "support" is broad enough.

If we really care about achieving interoperability, what we will do is
specify what options for upgrade we expect to work every time.  Maybe
throw in a few "MUST"s here and there.

The same goes for 2817 with Upgrade: TLS + HTTP/2.0.  We'd have to say
"do that" with some degree of specificity lest we risk things

(I'm not going to make any assessments about what is or is not the
"Right Thing To Do", but I don't think that your assertion fits in
light of the discussion thus far.)
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 20:49:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:21 UTC