Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: "Upgrade: h2" header for HTTP/1.1 via TLS (Bug 59311)
From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACsi252Zc8SqBbW+gPUngUiZWX9gV6P0KRNQEj0ooQ6ebHS0wQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:59:56 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CE051216-EAA0-4ED5-8132-90EEF2BB021A@greenbytes.de>
References: 
 <20160419144710.Horde.fEyz_FnLQe5b-8glHPB0ySG@webmail.michael-kaufmann.ch>
 <CACsi252Zc8SqBbW+gPUngUiZWX9gV6P0KRNQEj0ooQ6ebHS0wQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org


> Am 19.04.2016 um 17:47 schrieb William A Rowe Jr =
<wrowe@rowe-clan.net>:
>=20
> I agree with your analysis, "h2" is not an upgrade candidate. =20
>=20
> "h2c" is an upgrade candidate.
>=20
> 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.

Cheers,

Stefan=