- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 03:21:00 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 14/11/2014 1:59 a.m., Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa wrote: > Hi, > > We've been doing interop using h2-14 ALPN ID for a while. Some > client/server now only advertise h2-15, others do both h2-14 and > h2-15. Since draft-15 is binary compatible to h2-14, for code > simplicity and interop, it would be better to stick to h2-14, > unless we introduce binary incompatible changes in the future > draft. > > Thoughts? That would be non-compliance with both draft h2-14 and h2-15. Even if h2-15 bytes look identical to h2-14 they may cause different things to happen in the recipient than you are expecting from an h2-14 recipient. Advertising the latest version is also a statement that you are going to try and comply with the WG latest interpretation of behaviour as much as what bytes format you can send/receive. Amos -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUZL5MAAoJELJo5wb/XPRjSXoH/RlsTNEI4nD+y7pyY669tTwA 5gzg5ygxVmyFWrYtNgNLLuAjEIQ/iGhDzcTET7pqAL7Ebf9TdxUwx+nSvrXulSi/ KYLLrRVK6IendS3Qyj2Jq6d5fyVsv1sdzg0ncQkYv5cbsnfVDRXUS3wSpWAJduag XNd+KJTDmWoZbRZ7iJkiMto+Qcr0txftbSDwYb8XKHoWoEimyhsJjg6YUxkZ7B/T hNfBUnEGos3cFOGBuDJRfJy+LNWbN80xhl+npX4iYrG9dK/miSZvK1ClHNJye6di wr5W1MOHG7Gdi63RvwW6GmIeWZ0heuh2cx67G13S1obwKZbUQISO1+sNtFgKaJU= =6jOy -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 14:21:42 UTC