- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 09:24:49 -0700
- To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 29 May 2014 00:36, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote: > Perhaps it would be better to use h2f for failsafe mode, to make it clear > that h2 is the benchmark, and h2f is an acceptable variant/subset. It's more > of an all-or-nothing approach that way. It also fits the "add a letter, > remove a feature" pattern established with h2c and security. Please no. That's not a pattern worth repeating. I know that we've discussed a limited profile in the past, but that was used to prime initial state. I haven't seen any justification for creating a protocol variation. See Section 3.4 of RFC 6709: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6709#section-3.4 Note: h2c is a protocol variation in some ways, but it's merely propagating an existing variation.
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 16:25:19 UTC