- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 16:28:26 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 10/08/18 15:48, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 10/08/18 11:25, Mike Bishop wrote: >> Ick. This looks like a 6455 erratum – the registration is “WebSocket” >> but all the (non-normative) examples are “websocket”. Case-insensitive >> matching is explicitly permitted, and RFC2616/2817 don’t clearly say >> that Upgrade tokens are or aren’t case-sensitive that I can find. (Nor >> do I see it in 7230…?) >> > > I was of the understanding that Upgrade labels are governed by the > relevant protocols equivalent of RFC 7230 section 2.6 rules. So for > example HTTP labels *are* case sensitive, but WebSockets is free to > define sensitivity for its own label. > > RFC 6455 defines with a MUST requirement that client send "websocket" > (lower case) in Upgrade headers. Also there is a MUST requiring > case-insensitive match for non-"websocket" to fail the connection > (implying case-sensitive "websocket" is valid). I mean "case-insensitive" ^^ here. > > The situation seems reasonably clear to me that WebSockets Upgrade > values are case-insensitive. > Amos
Received on Friday, 10 August 2018 04:28:59 UTC