- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:54:56 +0200
- To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, hybi <hybi@ietf.org>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, McManus Patrick <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Ah! Let's agree on newer, better, faster... In that context, I understand your objection. ^^ > Am 17.10.2017 um 16:48 schrieb Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>: > > nothing about versions other than the name Upgrade :) > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:40 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> wrote: > > > > Am 17.10.2017 um 16:38 schrieb Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>: > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> wrote: > > > > Me stupid. Me asking, why not :upgrade? > > > > > > because its not upgrading anything to a higher version. I'm sure 6455 would have used a different name except they were reusing existing h1 infrastructure. > > rfc7230, ch. 6.7 > > "The "Upgrade" header field is intended to provide a simple mechanism > for transitioning from HTTP/1.1 to some other protocol on the same > connection." > > Nothing about version here. I do not mind another header name, but if it does the same thing... > > Cheers, > > Stefan > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2017 14:55:20 UTC