On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Sill, Alan <alan.sill@ttu.edu> wrote:
Any particular reason to specify exactly HTTP/1.1? I think that there are many advantages to using HTTP/2 for header compression, possibility to use multiplexed single-connection communications, binary representation, server push responses, etc. It’s backwards compatible so I think we need to allow for more generality.
Good point. There is no specific reason to use HTTP/1.1, aside from it being referenced in OCCI 1.1 HTTP Rendering spec [1]. If using HTTP/2 doesn't break anything with regard to OCCI 1.1, we can use it. Otherwise it will have to be included in an updated version of the profile for OCCI 1.2. In any case, it would be an encouragement, not a requirement (for practical reasons). Michel, is this correct? [1] https://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.185.pdf
I started a discussion on tis on another thread, but am holding off asking for anything specific until we can try it out.
Alan
Boris
On Mar 17, 2015, at 7:21 AM, Boris Parak <xparak@mail.muni.cz> wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have here, for your consideration, one of the first "formal" outputs of EGI FedCloud's work with OCCI -- The OCCI Resource Template Profile. We would very much like to hear your opinions, comments and/or suggestions.
After this (brief, hopefully) internal discussion phase, we would like to push for a public comment phase as soon as possible.
Thank you!
Cheers, Boris --- CESNET / EGI FedCloud <OCCI Resource template profile v6.docx><OCCI Resource template profile v6.pdf><OCCI Resource template profile v6.rtf>_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg