- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 13:15:47 +1000
- To: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Makes sense; I recorded that in the ticket. Thanks, On 15/05/2013, at 11:17 AM, Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> wrote: > I suggest the following change, since otherwise it could be understood that the server may return the protocols in any > order instead of in order of relative preference in a 101 response: > > "A server MUST send an Upgrade header field in 101 > (Switching Protocols) responses to indicate which > protocol(s) are being switched to, in order of relative preference, > and MUST send it in 426 (Upgrade Required) responses [etc]." > > --Peter -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 03:16:18 UTC