- From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 07:52:21 +0200 (EET)
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
> 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). There is: > 9. IANA Considerations > > 9.1. A New HTTP/2 Setting > > This document registers an entry in the "HTTP/2 Settings" registry > that was established by Section 11.3 of [RFC7540]. > > Code: 0x8 > Name: SETTINGS_ENABLE_CONNECT_PROTOCOL > Initial Value: 0 > Specification: This document > > 9.2. A New HTTP Upgrade Token > > This document registers an entry in the "HTTP Upgrade Tokens" > registry that was established by [RFC7230]. > > Value: websocket > Description: The Web Socket Protocol > Expected Version Tokens: > References: [RFC6455] [RFC8441] Well, draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport-01 seems do just that ( giving new upgrade token, as you suggest ) https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport-01#section-3.1 > 3.1. Initiating the Extended CONNECT Handshake > > Endpoints using this mechanism to establish byte stream or datagram > tunnels over HTTP/2 streams follow the CONNECT handshake procedure > defined in [RFC6455]. However, instead of supplying "websocket" for > the :protocol psuedo-header field to indicate a WebSocket connection, > they specify "bytestream" or "datagram" to indicate a byte stream or > datagram connection, respectively. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kinnear-httpbis-http2-transport-01#section-5 > 5. IANA Considerations > > This specification registers two entries in the "HTTP Upgrade Tokens" > registry that was established by [RFC7230]. What I missed ? / Kari Hurtta
Received on Friday, 22 March 2019 09:31:25 UTC