Re: Call for Adoption: HTTP/2 Bis

Hi Mike,

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:05:22PM +0000, Mike Bishop wrote:
> And to me, that's the real question over a new ALPN.  If we can keep the
> token "h2" and add GREASE successfully, let's do that.  If we can't add
> GREASE without changing the ALPN token, we should consider changing the ALPN
> token.

But why would GREASE require a new ALPN ? Bence is already doing some
greasing and managed to find bugs in several of our implementations. I'd
rather push stronger in this direction after some code points can be
reserved for various purposes.

>  Of course, that means we're effectively minting "h2.1" or
> "h2-nobugs", at which point we need not necessarily be limited to
> non-breaking changes.

What I hate with changing ALPN is that it's a user-visible change. Asking
users to change their ALPN string from "h2,http/1.1" to "h2.1,h2,http/1.1"
just because a working group decided to slightly change the protocol for
the sake of better interoperability is hard to justify, especially after
it was claimed that the protocol is called "HTTP/2" because it will not
have a sub-version.

If we'd change the ALPN we should then think about all the on-wire changes
that were discussed in the past, like the poor hpack encoding, changing
initial settings etc. It doesn't seem worth doing with H3 knocking at the
door in my opinion.


Received on Friday, 11 December 2020 04:41:36 UTC