- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 10:20:19 +0100
- To: McManus Patrick <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
- Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
> Am 12.11.2017 um 05:41 schrieb Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>: > > > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> wrote: > I now do not think that "upgrade" needs to be a pseudo header. > > The reason I proposed having :upgrade: pseudo header was due to my > understanding that HTTP/2 prohibited hop-by-hop headers, and that we > are trying to revive the "upgrade" hop-by-hop header of HTTP/1 by > trying to implement Websocket (or a generic upgrade) on HTTP/2. It > seemed to me that defining it as an extraordinary header (i.e. pseudo > header) seemed to make sense. > > > a colon header is a transport specific (i.e. hop to hop) header. In the context of what I have proposed, that's what I'm looking for - it changes the dynamics of the transaction into a fully bidirectional channel and that's transport specific. A non-colon upgrade header could be forwarded onto a transport that did not allow it. > +1
Received on Monday, 13 November 2017 09:20:45 UTC