- From: Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 00:20:29 -0400
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thank you! (Forgot to send it to the mailing list too.) --Peter -----Original Message----- From: Mark Nottingham Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:15 PM To: Peter Occil Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: p1: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact) Makes sense; I recorded that in the ticket. Thanks, On 15/05/2013, at 11:17 AM, Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> wrote: > I suggest the following change, since otherwise it could be understood > that the server may return the protocols in any > order instead of in order of relative preference in a 101 response: > > "A server MUST send an Upgrade header field in 101 > (Switching Protocols) responses to indicate which > protocol(s) are being switched to, in order of relative preference, > and MUST send it in 426 (Upgrade Required) responses [etc]." > > --Peter -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 04:21:08 UTC