W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2017

Re: Extending HTTP/2 | Re: New Version Notification for draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets-00.txt

From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 04:41:12 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNo8-L-3qjEq01roHL70dabnQK7zXYfJ2T51XOQZzeEv1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> wrote:

> I now do not think that "upgrade" needs to be a pseudo header.
>
> The reason I proposed having :upgrade: pseudo header was due to my
> understanding that HTTP/2 prohibited hop-by-hop headers, and that we
> are trying to revive the "upgrade" hop-by-hop header of HTTP/1 by
> trying to implement Websocket (or a generic upgrade) on HTTP/2. It
> seemed to me that defining it as an extraordinary header (i.e. pseudo
> header) seemed to make sense.
>
>
a colon header is a transport specific (i.e. hop to hop) header. In the
context of what I have proposed, that's what I'm looking for - it changes
the dynamics of the transaction into a fully bidirectional channel and
that's transport specific. A non-colon upgrade header could be forwarded
onto a transport that did not allow it.
Received on Sunday, 12 November 2017 04:41:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 September 2019 17:48:38 UTC