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

Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs

From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 23:31:16 +0000
To: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <em2056e4f5-41e9-4d83-92d7-51cabad4707c@bodybag>

is there no version transmitted anywhere (outside of ALPN).... or are we 
going to rely on ALPN to communicate that?

I'll have a big problem if we're talking about framing everything in TLS 
just so we can use ALPN.

Normal protocol design mandates having a version field somewhere in some 
message.  I've never found in practise this to be unnecessary, and any 
custom protocol I've ever worked with where someone omitted a version 
stamp, has been a nightmare when it comes to making changes.

So if we've truly dropped all version fields from the protocol I would 
strongly urge revisiting that decision.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>; "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>; 
"HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 6/12/2013 11:43:04 a.m.
Subject: Re: Our ALPN protocol IDs
>On 5 December 2013 13:20, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
>>  by current definitions of what constitutes minor vs major version 
>>  2.1 would be compatible with 2.2. If it isn't you'll call it 3.0.
>We lost strong ties to that convention when we dumped the version
>field from the protocol. We can, if we like, choose new conventions
>for 2 and onward.
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 23:31:37 UTC

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