2016-12-02 9:56 GMT+09:00 Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>: > > > 2016-12-02 9:19 GMT+09:00 Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>: > >> On 2 December 2016 at 11:09, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> > In particular, my recollection of the outcome of the discussion of WS >> in H2 was that a new SETTING or a new ALPN token could be used to indicate >> that a connection supports both H2 and WS. If there's a problem with doing >> so, that would be good to talk about as well. Especially considering QUIC. >> >> There seems to be some reluctance to exercise that option. I don't >> understand why; I've a bunch of candidate theories, but none of them >> make a lot of sense. >> >> > My understanding is that the cons of using SETTINGS only is that it > requires an additional roundtrip on connection establishment. I've heard > people oppose to the use of ALPN since they want to use both H2 and WS (and > possibly DNS?) on the same connection. > > Personally, I think using both SETTINGS (or introducing a new frame) and > ALPN solves the shortcomings (and the reluctance). We could consider ALPN > as a method to specify the application protocol (e.g. HTTP or WS or DNS), > and use SETTINGS for permitting additional protocols to be coalesced. > > Please let me correct the last sentence to the following: We could consider ALPN as a method to specify the application protocol (e.g. HTTP or WS or DNS) on the first flight, and use SETTINGS for permitting additional protocols to be coalesced. "on the first flight" was missing. -- > Kazuho Oku > -- Kazuho Oku
Received on Friday, 2 December 2016 01:00:04 UTC