W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: HTTP 2.0 "Upgrade" flow

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 23:02:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdCXhEppbDo8pMep-PyGOEM72-mTW2ums7_ssqd-nu_vQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Do we know how effective that is? I've no idea how often transparent
proxies bother about correctness w.r.t. things like this :(

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>wrote:

> On 17/04/2013 5:18 p.m., Roberto Peon wrote:
>> As proposed by Gabriel, SETTINGS (or equivalent) would/could be carried
>> in the headers in the UPGRADE request.
>> However, this isn't enough by itself-- you still want to cause
>> transparent proxies to barf when you start speaking HTTP/2 if they're not
>> going to be able to handle it.
> This is why the original proposal by Willy T. listed each of the HTTP/2
> "seeding" headers sent over HTTP/1.1 in the Upgrade request as a Connection
> header alongside Connection:Upgrade. So intermediaries would strip them
> away as well and break the Upgrade attempt cleanly.
> Amos
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 06:02:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:10 UTC