Major decisions at the NYC Interim

We had a productive meeting in NYC last week, either closing or documenting a plan for all open issues.

Full details can be found in the minutes <https://github.com/http2/wg_materials/blob/master/interim-14-06/minutes.md>, and each issue�s discussion should be noted on github (usually starting with �Discussed in NYC��).

For convenience, I�ll highlight the major outcomes below. However, if there�s a specific issue you�re interested in, I�d recommend reading the minutes and issue to be sure you understand the proposed direction.

Absent significant new information, we�ll adopt the resolutions captured in the issues list and move forward (note especially �next steps� below).

## Extensibility

We decided to allow simple hop-by-hop frame extensibility, as well as settings extensibility. They will be managed with an IANA registry.

## Implicit Content-Coding

We decided to remove implicit content-coding support by clients; HTTP/2 now works in the same manner as HTTP/1 regarding content-codings. The main reason for doing this was the interoperability and transparency problems brought about by implicit content encoding.

## Frame Compression

We removed hop-by-hop frame compression, because there wasn�t implementer interest in it, and there were concerns about security, complexity and interoperability. It was noted that compression can be added as an extension, provided that it was implemented.

## TLS Renegotiation

We decided to disallow TLS renegotation with HTTP/2, using a to-be-specified mechanism to direct clients to open a new connection if authentication using TLS client certificates is needed.

## HTTP URIs over TLS

We decided to adopt draft-nottingham-http2-encryption as an Experimental WG product; it will not be referenced from (or required for) HTTP/2, and it will not block publication of that spec (from a WG standpoint).

## Padding

We simplified the padding mechanism.

## Next Steps

We decided to publish a new Implement Draft in approximately one week, and will indicate that it�s a Last Call implementation draft. We intend to let that get implementation and deployment experience for a number of months, and if we get good data and no significant issues are found, that draft will go through WGLC, IETF LC and eventually become HTTP/2.

Because we currently have no issues open, we discussed whether it was necessary to meet in Toronto; that will be decided within the next week.


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

Received on Monday, 9 June 2014 15:46:50 UTC