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

Re: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)

From: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 00:25:28 -0400
Message-ID: <3190BAC22CE04E42BE6CCA933F3F86EE@PeterPC>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
One more thing:  The phrase "order of relative preference" is ambiguous; 
does it mean an ascending order or a descending order?
I prefer a descending order, myself, but it's up to you.

--Peter

-----Original Message----- 
From: Mark Nottingham
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:15 PM
To: Peter Occil
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)

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 04:26:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC