- From: Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:36:35 +0300 (EEST)
- To: Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>
- CC: Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Van Catha <vans554@gmail.com>: (Sat Oct 1 21:20:38 2016) <...> > require baking WebSocket2 directly into HTTP/2, the way it is now, > WebSocket2 should run over HTTP/2 with minimal resistance since we do not > introduce new settings or HTTP/2 frame types. HTTP/2 was designed from the > very beginning to not support 2 way streaming like websocket provides > currently for HTTP/1.1. I think the resistance would be great if adding > WebSocket2 requires adding to the actual HTTP/2 specification. <...> I interpreter Settings to be extension point. It does not touch HTTP/2 specification. Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540 5.5. Extending HTTP/2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-5.5 | This document doesn't mandate a specific method for negotiating the | use of an extension but notes that a setting (Section 6.5.2) could be | used for that purpose. If both peers set a value that indicates | willingness to use the extension, then the extension can be used. If | a setting is used for extension negotiation, the initial value MUST | be defined in such a fashion that the extension is initially | disabled. 11.3. Settings Registry https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-11.3 | This document establishes a registry for HTTP/2 settings. The | "HTTP/2 Settings" registry manages a 16-bit space. The "HTTP/2 | Settings" registry operates under the "Expert Review" policy | [RFC5226] for values in the range from 0x0000 to 0xefff, with values | between and 0xf000 and 0xffff being reserved for Experimental Use. How something (registeration) which is just "Expert Review" can be considered to be change of actual HTTP/2 specification ? / Kari Hurtta
Received on Saturday, 1 October 2016 19:37:08 UTC