Re: Upgrade ordering (possible HTTP/2 impact)

Left a note in the ticket about that, thanks again.

On 17/05/2013, at 2:25 PM, Peter Occil <poccil14@gmail.com> wrote:

> One more thing:  The phrase "order of relative preference" is ambiguous; does it mean an ascending order or a descending order?
> I prefer a descending order, myself, but it's up to you.
> 
> --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/
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 04:47:49 UTC