Re: Call for Adoption: Bootstrapping WebSockets with HTTP/2

+1   on this note.

Given HTTP/1.1 or RFC6455 won't go away, a direct tunneling approach
actually simplifies the Web (considering all the frameworks/proxies out
there) v.s. defining a more lightweight wire format for Websockets over
http/2.

With the introduction of "extended connect method", the title could have
read s/websockets/TCP protocols/ ... ?

Also, for section 4, could rationales on not defining a new method be
summarized?

Thanks.


On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 06:35:09PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > As discussed in Singapore, this is a Call for Adoption of Bootstrapping
> WebSockets with HTTP/2:
> >   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets-02
> >
> > So far there seems to be strong interest in this draft; please forward
> any
> > further thoughts (both for or against) on list in the next week, when
> we'll
> > make a decision.
>
> Let's adopt it and close the gap between h1 and h2!
>
> Willy
>
>