- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 07:42:33 +1100
- To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
- Message-ID: <CABkgnnVC9mJxKS9DM42UOiUJ9CfeeVgLJikoybwR5bEXsUZBmA@mail.gmail.com>
We should be clear, 3.4 (prior knowledge) is exceptional and doesn't apply here. That same prior knowledge could be used to find an alternative. On Feb 26, 2016 6:18 PM, "Kari Hurtta" <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote: > Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>: (Thu Feb 25 15:18:55 2016) > > On 2016-02-10 22:31, Mike Bishop wrote: > >> I agree. For example, if the proposal of using a .well-known URI to > delegate to an Alt-Svc gets traction and becomes an RFC, it could just > update Alt-Svc to define that as having assurance as well. > >> > >> Note that h2c on the same port doesn't need Alt-Svc, since the Upgrade: > header from the server is already defined. So what we're really talking > about is h2c *on a different port*. Honestly, I think if we put it on a > different port and publish an Alt-Svc pointing to it, we might as well go > direct (i.e. don't Upgrade from HTTP/1.1 on the new connection), which > would need a new token anyway. > > > > "new token" in what sense? > > > > Best regards, Julian > > > Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2) > RFC 7540 > > 3.1. HTTP/2 Version Identification > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-3.1 > > | o The string "h2c" identifies the protocol where HTTP/2 is run over > | cleartext TCP. This identifier is used in the HTTP/1.1 Upgrade > | header field and in any place where HTTP/2 over TCP is identified. > | > | The "h2c" string is reserved from the ALPN identifier space but > | describes a protocol that does not use TLS. > > > Is "h2c" reserved for clear text HTTP/2 with Upgrade: -header negotiation ? > > If there is "h2c" on Alt-Svc it can mean either clear text HTTP/2 > with Upgrade -negation or clear text HTTP/2 with Prior Knowledge > but it can not mean both. > > 3.4. Starting HTTP/2 with Prior Knowledge > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-3.4 > > | A client can learn that a particular server supports HTTP/2 by other > | means. For example, [ALT-SVC] describes a mechanism for advertising > | this capability. > > So it is unclear that is Upgrade: -supposed to be run when > Alt-Svc -header gives "h2c". But clear text HTTP/2 usage with > Alt-Svc -header needs own RFC anyway (and nobody supports clear > text HTTP/2). > > / Kari Hurtta > > >
Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 20:43:02 UTC