- 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
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