- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 01:43:50 -0800
- To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNd7o8baXtzORabZnHP0x59boSxJ1c3A3yQV1R+aY8gV=Q@mail.gmail.com>
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