- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 10:39:48 +1100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I've created an issue to track this, since we haven't done so explicitly before: https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/386 I'd like to have a *brief* discussion about it in London, so that we can come to agreement about what the plan is going forward. Cheers, On 15 Feb 2014, at 8:49 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 14 February 2014 12:25, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: >> I am completely uninterested in any option that keeps full RFC6455 semantics >> (frame extensions make zero sense) without significant ofsetting benefits, >> and I would work to ensure such was not again created at IETF, and would >> work to ensure that it was not implemented at Google. > > I too wondered why there was a need to tunnel thewebsocketprotocol as > opposed to creating a way to map the semantics efficiently. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 15 February 2014 23:40:19 UTC