Re: [Geopriv] HELD - support question for RFC 7540 (HTTP/2)

"Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz> Thu, 24 September 2015 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
X-Original-To: geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843891B2DC3 for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.267 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zirfZq2VQJsZ for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-0018ba01.pphosted.com (mx0b-0018ba01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DCB41B2DB8 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0078668.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-0018ba01.pphosted.com (8.15.0.59/8.15.0.59) with SMTP id t8OHCuFt030896; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:23:18 -0400
Received: from stntexhc11.cis.neustar.com ([156.154.17.216]) by mx0b-0018ba01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 1x4msqg27r-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:23:18 -0400
Received: from STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.5.189]) by stntexhc11.cis.neustar.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:23:17 -0400
From: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Geopriv] HELD - support question for RFC 7540 (HTTP/2)
Thread-Index: AQHQ9u2zN/qdXc7E2UOkrFCN4G2c1A==
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:23:17 +0000
Message-ID: <2389F962-80E2-49C2-B4EC-FB4ACC3BF11B@neustar.biz>
References: <FBD5AAFFD0978846BF6D3FAB4C892ACC28EA66A5@SEA-EXMB-1.telecomsys.com> <CABkgnnV8QwRP1r-Hy6pp9WUe0g4zD5OKFUcw05xYYKcgQZMefA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnV8QwRP1r-Hy6pp9WUe0g4zD5OKFUcw05xYYKcgQZMefA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.33.128.28]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <66EF3AE3AB7EC84295AD0FA3CA91619C@neustar.biz>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-09-24_08:2015-09-23,2015-09-24,1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
Cc: "GEOPRIV WG \(geopriv@ietf.org\)" <geopriv@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] HELD - support question for RFC 7540 (HTTP/2)
X-BeenThere: geopriv@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Geographic Location/Privacy <geopriv.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/geopriv/>
List-Post: <mailto:geopriv@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv>, <mailto:geopriv-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:23:21 -0000

If you need another opinion, I agree in all respects.

Brian

> On Sep 23, 2015, at 8:38 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>; wrote:
> 
> On 23 September 2015 at 15:09, Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com>; wrote:
>> What are the implications for HTTP/2 support for the HELD protocol (e.g.,
>> RFC 6155)?  Does HELD support for RFC 7540 require a new IETF Internet draft
>> or not?
> 
> There are no issues there.  HTTP/2 introduces new constraints on the
> implementation, in particular with respect to the use of TLS, but as
> long as those new requirements are met, then HTTP/2 is perfectly
> suitable for use with HELD.  (The same applies to LoST.)
> 
> The HTTP binding in RFC 5985 is intended to reduce the HTTP feature
> set that implementers need to support, not change it.  So any
> compliant implementation should be fine.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv