W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:19:17 +0200
To: "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130423171917.GI11448@1wt.eu>
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:16:25AM -0700, William Chan (?????????) wrote:
> I think adding the relative preference semantic is good.
> 
> I have to confess I was not aware of using Upgrade as a response header
> outside of a 101 or 426 response. This indeed sounds very similar to
> Alternate-Protocol. Is anyone actually using this in practice?

I don't think so, since Upgrade really started to be used with WebSocket.
However RFC2817 clearly mentions this possibility without speaking about
ordering, just about combinations.

Willy
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 17:19:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC