W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: #385: HTTP2 Upgrade / Negotiation

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 01:47:18 +0000
To: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <emcc9604a4-b61e-4704-b0ae-c80c3d8430de@bombed>

------ Original Message ------
From: "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
>>>

>>
>>On this note, I think it would be really useful if there could be 
>>some machine-readable way to query a proxy for HTTP-related 
>>capabilities. If that were part of 2.0, then failure to respond 
>>appropriately to such a query would in itself be an indication of 
>>lack of support for 2.0. 
>>
>>The client could do this test whenever it became aware of using a new 
>>proxy, e.g. before anyone types a URI or clicks a shortcut. So by the 
>>time the first user request is made, the client should know all it 
>>needs to know about the proxy. We should at least be able to solve 
>>that part of the problem. 
>
>You mean "OPTIONS * HTTP/..." ? 

that kind of thing, but need to be more specific about what and how to 
advertise things.  RFC2616 is fairly vague.  E.g. bodies on request or 
response aren't specified, but may be specified in extension etc, 
otherwise you get to send headers indicating optional features, but 
like what?  Accept-range, Allow, T-E?

maybe I need to do some more research for docs describing specific 
option advertisements.  Is there a list of such specs anywhere?

Adrien
>
>
>Amos 
>
Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 01:47:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 26 October 2012 01:47:46 GMT