- From: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:57:10 -0700
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 07:57:19PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> On Jul 17, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> > Roy, this is not how I read RFC2616 : >> >> Please read the section on Upgrade. > > OK I found the point you mention : > > "the first action after changing the protocol MUST be a response to > the initial HTTP request containing the Upgrade header field." I don't see anything in 2616 (or STD 3) that would require this response in the new protocol to have a nonzero length, though, regardless of the HTTP method in the request. -Brian
Received on Monday, 18 July 2011 05:57:45 UTC