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

Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com> Thu, 24 September 2015 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=170951a8aa=RMarshall@telecomsys.com>
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 BC06E1B30E8 for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 ORFxCF1vgk5w for <geopriv@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sea-mx-01.telecomsys.com (sea-mx-01.telecomsys.com [199.165.246.44]) (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 A4E9D1B30D7 for <geopriv@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SEA-EXCAS-2.telecomsys.com (exc2010-local2.telecomsys.com [10.32.12.187]) by sea-mx-01.telecomsys.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t8OIA1gv014282 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:10:01 -0700
Received: from SEA-EXMB-1.telecomsys.com ([169.254.1.231]) by SEA-EXCAS-2.telecomsys.com ([10.32.12.187]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:10:01 -0700
From: Roger Marshall <RMarshall@telecomsys.com>
To: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
Thread-Topic: [Geopriv] HELD - support question for RFC 7540 (HTTP/2)
Thread-Index: AdD2TErhOh2mgxjIQ9u+MjrdWt+sVwAaNDyAABzQ+ID//5e1YQ==
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:10:00 +0000
Message-ID: <F82817DD-2AB9-49FF-A105-CE47D9341668@telecomsys.com>
References: <FBD5AAFFD0978846BF6D3FAB4C892ACC28EA66A5@SEA-EXMB-1.telecomsys.com> <CABkgnnV8QwRP1r-Hy6pp9WUe0g4zD5OKFUcw05xYYKcgQZMefA@mail.gmail.com>, <2389F962-80E2-49C2-B4EC-FB4ACC3BF11B@neustar.biz>
In-Reply-To: <2389F962-80E2-49C2-B4EC-FB4ACC3BF11B@neustar.biz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/geopriv/aO1BhJBnydqCsEW059mkS6dxRfE>
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 18:10:11 -0000

Martin & Brian:
Thanks to you both for weighing in on this.

-roger.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 24, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Rosen, Brian <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>; wrote:
> 
> 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
> 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, any review, forwarding, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately, and delete it and all attachments from your computer and network.