- From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:10:53 +0000
- To: "Gabriel Montenegro" <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Ilari Liusvaara" <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, "Ilya Grigorik" <ilya@igvita.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi ------ Original Message ------ From: "Gabriel Montenegro" <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com> > >> >I think that you either send the session header immediately after >>the >> >first request (the Upgrade) and risk having it swalled, >> that could do nasty things if the server is only 1.1 >> >> >or you send it >> >immediately before the next (HTTP/2.0) request. In either case, you >> >don't incur an RTT delay. >> next request may not exist. > >So the client is done then. Why is it an issue? What would be gained by >the client sending its session header after it was done effectively >using the session? proxy doesn't know if the client is done or not.
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 23:11:17 UTC