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

Re: Getting to consensus on HTTP:// over TLS

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:07:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYgdgnW9x9RbEko6pMu7tM9Jct3nLxn0GqcLY-FF+B38_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Looking at things, it's clear to me that my understanding of things was
somewhat confused (normative references and mixing of the opportunistic
encryption next steps as discussed first by Pat in the middle of the 2nd
httpbis session, then re-raised at the end of the session, and then more
concrete next steps discussed in the design meeting). I'm happy with the
current state of the discussion process - documenting the non-HTTP/2
portions outside of the HTTP/2 spec. As Rob states, I also don't want to
see it block the HTTP/2 work, although I think Julian is right that it will
likely finish first anyway.


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

>
> On 20 Mar 2014, at 6:58 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
> > Let's decouple the discussion of HTTP for TLS URLs from that for the
> rest of alt-svc. The text I've been working on is the section starting here:
> >
> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/compare/altsvc#diff-8894168382f6487e5e38c4306e613a88R455
> >
> > Let's consider that text an in-play proposal.
>
> ... moved to:
>   https://gist.github.com/mnot/9660370
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 22:07:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:25 UTC