Re: [hybi] workability (or otherwise) of HTTP upgrade

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 30.11.2010 02:29, Eric J. Bowman wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My suggested fixes to 9.8, based on the notion that HTTP 1.0, 1.1
>>> and 2.0, and PTTH 1.0, are not "incompatible" protocols:
>>> ...
>>
>> Not convinced.
>>
>> If the protocol is compatible, you don't need "Upgrade" in the first
>> place.
>>
>
> Two issues here.  One, is whether Upgrade should be a general-purpose
> protocol tunneling mechanism vs. an HTTP-specific versioning mechanism.
> Two, is how to change the wording.  There are probably specific terms
> which describe exactly what I'm getting at, in languages other than
> English (you Germans probably have an absurdly-long compound word that
> captures exactly what I'm trying to say :-).

:-)

>> So, HTTP/2.0 *will* need upgrade, if you start the conversation using
>> HTTP 1.*.
>>
>
> Of course.  I'm not arguing against Upgrade as a versioning mechanism
> for HTTP and HTTP-ish protocols.  I can't imagine that HTTP 2.0 would
> abandon the request/response or resource/representation paradigms,
> which I'm suggesting be a requirement for protocols bound to port 80.
> ...

It's not clear to me where you want to draw the line.

- Uprade to TLS is already defined (although not really used), and 
changes the message framing

- Things like SPDY and/or Waka will have binary headers, so will have no 
on-the wire resemblance to HTTP messages

- I can easily imagine that HTTP/2.0 could add server-initiated messages.

If these things qualify as HTTP/2.0 features, why not allow other 
protocols to use same mechanism?

Best regard, Julian