Re: #385: HTTP2 Upgrade / Negotiation

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

On 24/10/2012, at 4:17 AM, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.


OK, I think they're aware of it anyway. :)

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/