Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs

by current definitions of what constitutes minor vs major version 
numbers, 2.1 would be compatible with 2.2.  If it isn't you'll call it 

------ Original Message ------
From: "Carsten Bormann" <>
To: "Martin Thomson" <>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <>; "HTTP Working Group" 
Sent: 6/12/2013 6:49:44 a.m.
Subject: Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs
>>  For HTTP/2.x, the negotiation between HTTP/2.0 and a hypothetical
>>  HTTP/2.1 would use ALPN and "h2" and maybe "h2.1". Any unique string
>>  would suffice.
>Works for me.
>(Thinking about how the new identifiers will look like still doesn’t 
>>   Any new, incompatible version of HTTP will use a different
>>  identifier string. For instance, a hypothetical HTTP/2.1 might be
>>  identified by the string "DUCK”.
>Well, is HTTP/2.1 going to be “incompatible” with HTTP/2.0?
>(Mark seems to think there is some form of compatibility as long as we 
>don’t change the major version.
>That’s why I’d like to see something written up about the evolution 
>model, even if it is by nature going to be tentative.)
>Grüße, Carsten

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 21:20:51 UTC