- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 23:20:21 +0000
- To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
------ Original Message ------ From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> >In message <CABP7RbcS-yOuxUG2u-OB3rGK+s1MTp-TXa9ts4xwnp-o7Pchjw@mail.gmail.com> >, James M Snell writes: > > >> >>I want to just clarify that the proposed language does leave the room open >>for potentially non-backwards compatible changes to be made within HTTP >>2.0. >> > > >Where does 2.0<-->1.1 conversion _realistically_ come into play ? > > > You mean where are we most likely to see 2.0 down-graded to 1.1? I think this will be extremely common for a very long time. 2.0 client talks to 2.0 local proxy talking to 1.1 internet. So the proxy is going to have to handle the discovery of server protocol support. What fun! Adrien > >
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2012 23:21:04 UTC