Re: #385: HTTP2 Upgrade / Negotiation

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Mark,

On 10/23/12 4:03 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> The question for us right now is what requirements we want to place upon that work. Currently, I have:
>
> ---8<---
> TLS Working Group Chairs,
>
> This is a request from the HTTPbis Working Group for you to commence work upon a mechanism that allows clients and servers to negotiate the particular application protocol to use once the session is established.
>
> Our use case is for HTTP/2.0 in conjunction with HTTP URIs; rather than defining a new port, which incurs both performance and deployment penalties, a negotiation mechanism would allow for better deployment of HTTP/2.0 for HTTPS URIs.
>
> We would expect such a mechanism to allow the client and server to negotiate the use of one of potentially many such protocols (in our case, HTTP/1.x and HTTP/2.x), identified by tokens, and falling back to a default for the port in use (in our case, HTTP/1.x) when either side doesn't support negotiation, or an agreement can't be found.
>
> We also note existing work in this area:
>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg-04
>
> The HTTPbis Working Group will be happy to coordinate schedules, review drafts and provide further input as required.
>
> --->8---
>

It's a little odd having to have one working group liaise a request to
another working group, but alright.  Traditionally we do not name
individual drafts in liaisons, and I suggest we not do that in this
case, as there are posted alternatives.

Eliot