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

Re: HTTP/2, "h2t" and protocol identifiers in general

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 01:43:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNd7o8baXtzORabZnHP0x59boSxJ1c3A3yQV1R+aY8gV=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm concerned that, given the way this discussion has been heading, we may
see a combinatorial explosion of ALPN IDs.
I've opened: https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/422 as a result.
-=R


On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>wrote:

> On 1 March 2014 15:19, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> On 1/03/2014 3:25 p.m., Matthew Kerwin wrote:
>> > On 1 March 2014 11:57, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 1/03/2014 5:09 a.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I'd be OK with "h2" for TLS and something like "h2p" (for
>> "plaintext").
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> FWIW: I prefer the orginal proposal where the 't' signified the
>> >> injection of TLS layer between HTTP/2 and TCP.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > And my two cents, because I love painting sheds: I prefer 'h2s' for
>> HTTP/2
>> > over TLS, for its symmetry with http/https.
>> >
>>
>> I thought about suggesting that, but we are actually wanting to *detach*
>> the symmetry.
>>
>>  => h2t in the proxy cases TLS without meaning HTTPS specifically.
>>
>>
> I suppose so. In that case, does the token have to be quite so short? I
> know there was this discussion: <
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/0941.html>
> but it seems using a single letter after "h2" is a tiny bit of an issue. A
> token that could be misinterpreted by a hurried implementer will eventually
> cause someone some grief.
>
> Here are my suggestions, in order of preference, and then I'll stop
> arguing about paint colour (even though it matches my level of expertise
> wonderfully):
>
> 1. "h2tls" and "h2tcp" -- these aren't protocol-stack-based identifiers,
> we just avoid a default and explicitly differentiate between TLS and
> just-TCP.
> 2. "h2" for TCP+HTTP and "h2tls" for TLS -- because HTTP/2 makes no claims
> about its transport (and TCP is an internet default), while TLS is an
> explicit variation.
> 3. "h2" for TLS and "h2tcp" for just-TCP -- because TLS is likely going to
> be the most common use-case, so it could be a justifiable default.
> 4. "h2" for TLS and "h2c" for "HTTP/2 in cleartext", in line with @mnot's
> earlier suggestion.
>
> --
>   Matthew Kerwin
>   http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
>
Received on Monday, 3 March 2014 09:44:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC