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

Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:49:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUKtxcwGWNDzg7AMXjFYveVAWbu_gKBcmgYxqkMadyRtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Cc: Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "C.Brunhuber@iaea.org" <C.Brunhuber@iaea.org>
On 30 June 2014 09:43, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com> wrote:
> What's the right order to tackle this issue? Can we remove END_SEGMENT and
> then patch the websockets proposal, or do we need to have a story for
> websockets first?

I think that we have to resolve the issue, either:

a) A new protocol (like websockets) can be layered on top
of/integrated with HTTP/2 without changing the application negotiation
token, as long as the properties of the protocol are compatible.  That
is, intermediaries that support HTTP/2 can carry websockets.

b) A new protocol needs a new application negotiation token.
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 16:49:33 UTC

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