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