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

Re: Starting HTTP/2.0 for HTTP - Upgrade

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 15:11:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnU_wBq49o6dv=On0g8_xkexoCrkYRnU4C8JkiPH5Ku40g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7 October 2013 08:31, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> You might also choose to send only the bare minimum in the HTTP2-Settings
> header (since this will be padded onto every 1.1 request you might want to
> upgrade), then send a more complete SETTINGS frame once you know the server
> speaks 2.0.

That's what I'd do.  If it weren't for the extra bytes, I'd push all
settings into the HTTP/1.1 header.

> Regardless, I don’t believe it’s an omission -- it’s a decision to have the
> code paths be as similar as possible by always having the client send
> SETTINGS as part of the 2.0 connection setup, even if (in this case) it
> might be redundant.

Yes, this was definitely not an oversight.  We knew this up front and
made the decision to keep the implementations the same as much as
possible, regardless of entry point.
Received on Monday, 7 October 2013 22:11:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC