- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:09:57 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 3 September 2014 14:08, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > Yes, it contradicts RFC7230, which is a bad example to be setting. The contradiction seems to be dependent on interpretation, given the actual usage of Upgrade, which is basically just websockets. > Unless there is a strong reason to do so, and I have seen none here, You obviously disagree, but I consider this to be a strong enough reason. We did originally identify using the string "HTTP/2.0", but there were concerns raised about the length of that string and something of a lengthy discussion about the value of having distinct compartments in the string that had semantics (or implied semantics). The length concern is now less pressing since we know more about the bug in question, but we did choose not to revert the change. The net outcome of the discussion was that no one was able to identify any value in having a regimented structure. There was some discussion about the virtues of structure in general and the structure defined specifically in RFC 2817, but the conclusion there was that the value structure provides was outweighed by the simplicity of an opaque token.
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 18:10:26 UTC