> On 1 Sep 2016, at 6:31 PM, Dave Garrett <davemgarr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, September 01, 2016 02:05:25 am Judson Wilson wrote: >>> I like TLS/2 aesthetically, and represents a similar level of >>> progress/reset that HTTP saw when it jumped from 1.1 to /2. >> >> What is the slash in the name all about? Is it simply playing off the HTTP >> start line specification? Does it have any relevance to TLS? > > Did this slash form start with HTTP/2, or was there some other progenitor? > Why did they go with that, anyway? I just find it to be a weird choice. If we > actually have a consensus that it'd be better to go with TLS/2 than TLS 2.0, > officially, I'd only be ok with it if someone can actually explain why. :|
HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 had these strings as part of the on-the-wire format: GET / HTTP/1.1 The slash rather than a space makes it easier to parse with strtok(), I guess. HTTP/2 is more binary so there is no “HTTP/2” string inside, but the name kept the format. Yoav _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
