>>>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 09:16:30 +1000, Greg Wilkins <gregw_at_webtide.com> said:
GW> I'm not so sure that requiring a specific protocol is that
GW> meaningful. In the IETF working group discussions about protocols
GW> (where quic is being discussed as the next thing after h2), they
GW> frequently use language to talk about HTTP semantics vs HTTP or
GW> other transport protocols.
GW> So perhaps we should just require containers to support the HTTP
GW> semantic as defined by the relevant RFCs and allow flexibility in
GW> the protocols used to transport that semantic.
I'm going to push back on that. We have to keep in mind that the HTTP/2
RFCs were crafted mainly from the perspective of browser vendors, and as
such leaving the decision of whether to require h2c or not out of the
RFCs makes sense. I think in the name of providing a broad and portable
server platform we need to make stronger guarantees.
Thanks,
Ed
--
| edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
| 4 business days until planned start of Servlet 4.0 Public Review