W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Possible to support only HTTP/2 for "http" URIs? "https" URIs?

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 19:50:13 +0000
To: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <84009C80-062F-4C8B-9616-049EDAE72BD2@iaea.org>
Hi Martin-

> On Jul 16, 2014, at 19:25, "martin.thomson@gmail.com" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Almost.  You should use Upgrade instead of Alt-Svc.

Why can't you also use Alt-Svc? I thought that was one of the purposes of Alt-Svc.  Specifically, what's wrong with my usage of Alt-Svc as I described it in option b) below? Did you mean that the sever could send Upgrade _and_ Alt-Svc with its 505 response to a http/1.x request?

>> b. "Alt-Svc"
>> If a HTTP/1.x request arrives _without_ an "Upgrade: h2c" header, do the
>> following: Send a "505 HTTP Version Not Supported" with an Alt-Svc header
>> e.g. "Alt-Svc: h2c=82". Itís up to the client to switch to h2c at the
>> specified port.

> I've added this to the FAQ:
> https://github.com/http2/http2.github.io/commit/346e7da2dcde0082351d33203a8b7cd9670ae619

Great. Thanks. I think that captures exactly what I was asking/thinking wrt "Upgrade".


This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 19:50:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC