httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)
Date Wed, 20 Apr 2016 03:35:37 GMT
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Stefan Eissing <
stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> wrote:

>
> > Am 19.04.2016 um 17:47 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>:
> >
> > I agree with your analysis, "h2" is not an upgrade candidate.
> >
> > "h2c" is an upgrade candidate.
> >
> > This isn't even an HTTP/2 issue (unless the working group reverses
> themselves
> > on accepting Upgrade: h2 protocol switching), until we accept Upgrade:
> h2 we
> > should be dropping h2 from the server Upgrade: response header.  But do
> let
> > us know what the wg feedback is.
>
> While I do not feel strongly about this feature, I'd like to add that the
> "Upgrade: h2" is sent out as that very mechanism is available to a client.
> And I do not feel strongly because I do not know of a client that might be
> able to use it. It is just the result of a sane software architecture that
> this has become visible.
>
> We would probably not be talking about this if some Javascript client
> implementation had not consciously decided to freak out on *any* Upgrade:
> header from the server.
>
> If http-wg thinks that it should not be visible, I'll add the extra 'if'
> to our implementation.
>

Skimming the responses, they just keep getting more and more amusing, and
shining a candle to the absurdity of keeping this non-sequitur request
response.

Could you go ahead and add that conditional?

We still haven't determined if the "reply Upgrade: once, then pretend we
didn't"
is valid HTTP/1.1, which I read that it is not.  Need to come back to that
topic.

Cheers,

Bill

Mime
View raw message