- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 14:01:47 -0700
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 5 September 2013 13:43, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > That would be potentially problematic in some ways, as you really do want to > be in the http/2 context for the response. "That" being what specifically? The response is sent in HTTP/2.0, but the point was that the *request* is in HTTP/1.1. > We could solve some of this by stating that you must not have expect: > continue when upgrading to http/2. Roy's point here, I think, is that expect: 100-continue has to come before upgrade: foo, in all cases. We could prohibit the combination too, but perhaps there is no need. I suspect that anyone with any sense will try to avoid this combo anyway.
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2013 21:02:14 UTC