Re: Invalid HTTP2 preface handling?

On 11/02/2015 2:27 p.m., Greg Wilkins wrote:
> Amos,
> 
> that is a good way of doing it - more or less like an upgrade, but without
> the complexity of having to inject the settings frame and HTTP/1 request
> into the server.      While I hear what Mark says about caution, I really
> don't see a great risk here and thus will look at supporting it also.

I agree with Mark completely about the 2.0 -> 1.1 transition being
dangerous. 1.1 has a scary amount of legacy tolerances and gaps where
nastiness can squeeze through.

Beyond safety is the other issue of promoting 2.0 at every opportunity
while remaining compatible with a deprecated 1.x.

Amos

Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 02:32:25 UTC