W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: Call for Closure - HTTP response version

From: David W. Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 18:07:07 -0800 (PST)
To: Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961231180248.27146C-100000@shell1.aimnet.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2218 


On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Alexei Kosut wrote:

> Hmm. Isn't this where Upgrade: was intended to be used? Something like:
> 
> GET /something HTTP/1.1
> Upgrade: HTTP/2.0
> 
> and then the server would respond with 2.0 if it supported it? That's
> what section 14.41 of the HTTP/1.1 spec would seem to indicate.

As written UPGRADE only applies to the current transport layer connection
and only to incompatible protocols. While there is a possiblity that
it might be re-written to provide a subsequent connection hint as well
as my suggestion, I think one could easily postulate that certain 
upgrades would truly only apply within a connection and never as the
initial state of a new connection so there would be a conflict.

Dave Morris
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 1996 18:12:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:01 UTC