[mdx] Joe on section 2.1

[Ian Young]

On 26 Sep 2013, at 16:00, Ian Young <ian at iay.org.uk> wrote:

> Joe:
> 
>>  Will the 2.1 specific requirement that HTTP 1.1 *in particular* 
>>  be used become problematic as the HTTP spec evolves? For example,
>>  I notice that the HTTPbis Working Group actually kicked out a 
>>  dash 6 rev for the HTTP v2 spec just yesterday, see
>>  http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-06.txt (so I'm
>>  hopeful that at some point we'll move beyond RFC2616)
> 
> Leif:
> 
>> Agree. Lets say "HTTP 1.1 or later"
> 
> Again, no objection seen and it sounds sensible to me as long as there is no implication that there is a requirement on the server to implement later versions of HTTP.
> 
> Comments welcome on whether just adding "or later" is the appropriate change here.

On re-reading this, it strikes me that this may be trickier than it first appears. Is anyone here familiar enough with the http2 draft to know whether it provides all of what we're requiring?  As an example, if http2 didn't allow for ETag then saying that you could use a later version of HTTP would be contradicted given that we require that facility.

I guess if no-one knows, I should try and skim that spec and get an impression.

	-- Ian



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4813 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.iay.org.uk/pipermail/mdx-iay.org.uk/attachments/20130926/43cb6e43/attachment.bin>