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

Re: Starting HTTP/2.0 for HTTP - Upgrade

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 15:21:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcjO6O6Ydy4K-v-d7HBtbrszWiZUwaqbXZQ2s5imEgA0w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
As Martin has said, this was intentional-- the codepaths should be the same
as much as possible.


On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 donít believe itís an omission -- itís 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 22:22:00 UTC

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