Re: WGLC issue: (minor?) scope of client/server attributes (specifically: downgrades) in p1 from Nils Goroll on 2012-10-24 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2012)

From: Nils Goroll <slink@schokola.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:20:05 +0200
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <5087CEE5.1020207@schokola.de>

> A UA might decide to "remember" the downgrade longer than the scope of a single connection.

Then the implication would be that all actual server processes behind an address 
or fqdn had to support the same version(s).

Also, this would not be consistent with the definition for upgrades, which I'd 
find confusion.

Thanks, Nils

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 11:20:34 UTC