- From: Lucas Pardue <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:45:47 +0000
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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? This has affected work I have been performing in the last week, principally between Chrome Canary and nghttp2 (but presumably any client/server combo would be susceptible). I tend to agree with Amos, in general behavioural differences between versions could lead to interop issues. Being strict with advertising support for what is truly implemented builds greater confidence "in-band". In cases where software is capable of supporting multiple versions, can that not be supported in the ALPN negotiation? In the h2-14/h2-15 case, if the differences truly are minimal the branching complexity within the software is minimal.
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 14:46:17 UTC