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

Re: h2 use of Upgrade

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 16:37:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdLg=0f24j145fx7_G3At2h3zaZcaA_2+fUr9g+02dt-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Well, it is no skin of my back if upgrade is less well supported than a TLS
based negotiation.

The difference extends beyond settings when one considers extensions.

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> 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 23:38:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC