Subject: Re: EXT: RE: draft-montenegro-httpbis-h2ot-00 question

From: "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Connections)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 20:50:50 +0000

On 7/13/16, 3:16 PM, "Gabriel Montenegro"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>On the profile section, are there particular aspects to h2 that are
>> not particularly well-suited to implementation in constrained devices?
>>  Is there anything that implementing h2 has suggested (that maybe
>> hasn't already been suggested to this working group?
>
>Robby may have further thoughts about this...

In my experience, I've found h2 to be suited for constrained devices and
hence the reason for an I-D advocating such a position.

My only additional suggestions are likely not useful at this point as they
would break the current spec (and some I've mentioned before):
- Making the static table truly alphabetical
- Adding default values for items in the static table (many do not have
default values)
- In addition to preset SETTINGS profiles, allowing the piggybacking of
SETTINGS ACKs with SETTINGS
- Then there are the traditional issues that many protocols do not
address: operation under extreme battery limitations and multicasting of
operations (requests)

In short, I think h2 is well-suited for IoT but not yet on many radars.
I'm hoping with this I-D and suggestions you all may have, we can change
that.

HTH,
Robby