On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Matthew Hall <mh...@mhcomputing.net> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 05:41:52PM -0500, Zhong Yu wrote: >> Note that HTTP/2.0 is in very early stage; it's possible that the >> requirement of ALPN could be relaxed if there's difficulty to >> implement it on popular platforms; see this thread: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JulSep/0425.html > > I'm not sure putting ALPN in there is the best idea, if you want this to work > right on millions of already deployed but un-upgradeable mobile devices around > the world. > > I think maybe it makes more sense to have an HTTP/2.0 string like what's seen > with HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 or some other such mechanism that doesn't cause > contamination between the layers of the protocol stack.
These are very good points and you probably should raise them on the http list. My objection to the ALPN mandate is that Java doesn't have out-of-box support, and the http people like to get an understanding just how difficult/distant it would be to to deploy ALPN on Java platforms. Zhong Yu
