W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport questions

From: Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:29:00 +0800
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <d013754d-366a-0fb2-c80d-75875697b1d5@warmcat.com>


On 20/03/2019 18:05, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Lots to think about here.  Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for discussing it on the list.

> I have a few fairly basic questions about the goals of the draft.
> 
> Why do you need to use both :protocol and a setting?  Isn't SETTINGS_ENABLE_CONNECT_PROTOCOL plus the new values for :protocol enough?
> 
> How does a :protocol of bytestream differ from a plan CONNECT?

Putting datagram thing to one side, perhaps I missed it but it seems it 
doesn't buy anything compared to RFC8441:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8441/?include_text=1

That already has the same idea of CONNECT-ing the stream to be 
different, non-http transport over stream DATA frames.  Although RFC8441 
is focused on transporting websockets, it defines an upgrade name 
registry so you can upgrade to something else (Section 9.2).

-Andy
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2019 10:29:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 20 March 2019 10:29:35 UTC