- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:22:02 -0700
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sep 3, 2014, at 3:37 PM, Roberto Peon wrote: > Not in the ALPN-based connectivity case, at least, implying different codepaths (and a required increase in verbosity near the start of the communication) for upgrade vs ALPN-based negotiation. That was already implied just by the use of Upgrade on an *existing* connection. The client is already telling the server what settings it wants -- why does it need to repeat that in a painfully stupid factorial combination of protocol name tokens? ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 23:22:25 UTC