- From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 21:56:18 +0000
- To: William Chan (³ÂÖDzý) <willchan@chromium.org>, "Daniel Sommermann" <dcsommer@fb.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
The general outcome of that discussion was that, if you want to add custom setting values or frame types to the base spec, you should define a corresponding ALPN string (e.g. "H2-FB") so you can be sure both parties know about and agree to use the extra values. It's a higher bar and encourages fragmentation (which I don't like), but it gets rid of the need to negotiate what's supported or to restrict what those settings can do. -----Original Message----- From: willchan@google.com [mailto:willchan@google.com] On Behalf Of William Chan (???) Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 12:37 PM To: Daniel Sommermann Cc: HTTP Working Group Subject: Re: User defined SETTINGS frame extensions http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#SettingValues says: "An endpoint that receives a SETTINGS frame with any other setting identifier MUST treat this as a connection error (Section 5.4.1) of type PROTOCOL_ERROR." People discussed allowing this sort of extensibility at the Zurich interim. I think it was fairly contentious but overall we decided to disallow it. You're absolutely right that this kind of extensibility could have value, but I think we killed it off like we killed off all other extensibility, since people should just use a different ALPN token. I don't think there was a strong consensus at all, so you should push on this if you have strong feelings here. On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com> wrote: > Right now, the HTTP/2 spec reserves higher numbers SETTINGS > identifiers for future revisions to the protocol. Would there be a > benefit to allowing users to register/reserve identifiers for their > own use? Or perhaps a weaker, more practical version of this: set > aside a range of high numbered identifiers (ala ephemeral ports) that > are reserved for internal use within controlled networks. It could be > useful to allow two internal HTTP/2 endpoints to exchange information > via SETTINGS that do not make sense for the internet at large. >
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 21:56:48 UTC