- From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 09:10:32 +1000
- To: Josh Cohen <joshco@gmail.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com>, cxres@protonmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 at 05:49, Josh Cohen <joshco@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the clarification. Looking at the http2 rfc9113[1], bottom of section 8.3.1, says: > "Individual HTTP/2 requests do not carry an explicit indicator of protocol version. All HTTP/2 requests implicitly have a protocol version of "2.0"" > > So, there's no longer an explicit version string, or header. > > The reason I asked was when considering new methods. The option of revving the version of the messaging/semantics layer isn't feasible. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9113#section-8.3.1 > I'd do it the same way I would in HTTP/1.1 – either 1. send ":method: FOOBAR" and see what the server does, or 2. use OPTIONS. Either check that 'FOOBAR' is in the Allow field, or if I want more rich capability/compliance advertisement, send a "X-WantToUse-Foobar: 1" header field, and have the server signal its compliance appropriately That would always have been safer than just assuming a server that responds to "GET / HTTP/1.2" actually paid heed to the "2" Cheers -- Matthew Kerwin [he/him] https://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Friday, 2 August 2024 23:10:48 UTC