W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: New Version Notification for draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 18:05:49 +1000
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com, grmocg@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <358BEAF7-9658-4FED-B084-A15A644C30C9@mnot.net>
To: K.Morgan@iaea.org
Yes, we reopened the extensibility issue.


On 31 May 2014, at 6:02 pm, <K.Morgan@iaea.org> <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:

> +1 from me too
> 
> Mark-
> 
> Is this on the agenda for discussion next week in New York?
> 
> -Keith
> 
> 
> On May 22, 2014, at 20:02, "grmocg@gmail.com<mailto:grmocg@gmail.com>" <grmocg@gmail.com<mailto:grmocg@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Yup.
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com<mailto:jasnell@gmail.com>> wrote:
> +1... many times over.
> 
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Mike Bishop
> <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com<mailto:Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>> When we decided in Zurich to foreclose the option to extend HTTP/2, we
>> thought that we were close to done with the basic protocol.  And it’s true
>> -- the fundamentals of HTTP/2 haven’t changed all that much since then.  But
>> various cases keep coming up where certain parties need to add one more
>> feature.  While these aren’t core to the HTTP/2 protocol, they’re also not
>> worth versioning the protocol for later, and so we’ve added them to the spec
>> for experimentation as optional components.
>> 
>> This draft proposes that many of these would be perfectly valid use-cases
>> for extensions, and that we might make progress more quickly if we add a
>> simple extension model.  I believe that the time we take in getting the
>> extension model right will be more than offset by the ability to unblock the
>> protocol and still handle new situations as they arise, even though we’re
>> late in the process.
>> 
>> I want to emphasize that the goal of the extension model is simplicity in
>> the core protocol, and I’d welcome feedback on how to simplify it further.
>> 
>> Sent from Windows Mail
>> 
>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>> Sent: ıThursdayı, ıMayı ı22ı, ı2014 ı10ı:ı24ı ıAM
>> To: Mike Bishop, Mike Bishop
>> 
>> 
>> A new version of I-D, draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Mike Bishop and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>> 
>> Name:  draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames
>> Revision: 01
>> Title:  Extension Frames in HTTP/2
>> Document date: 2014-05-22
>> Group:  Individual Submission
>> Pages:  18
>> URL:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01.txt
>> Status:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames/
>> Htmlized:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01
>> Diff:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames-01
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>   This document describes a proposed modification to the HTTP/2
>>   specification to better support the creation of extensions without
>>   the need to version the core protocol or invoke additional protocol
>>   identifiers.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>.
>> 
>> The IETF Secretariat
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 31 May 2014 08:06:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC