> On 1. 1. 2024, at 15:19, r1wcp...@bbqporkmccity.com wrote: > > Thank you very much, I was unaware of the HTTP/2 requirement and was assuming > it is a bug. Is there any reason for omitting the HTTP/1.1 upgrade part of > the protocol?
It would be additional complexity that's really not needed. The HTTP/2 library (libnghttp) doesn't provide HTTP/1.1 implementation, so we would have to bolt something own for a little gain. And it would increase an attack surface as it would be yet another protocol open to the world that can have bugs in it. Ondřej -- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) ond...@isc.org My working hours and your working hours may be different. Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours. -- Visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list ISC funds the development of this software with paid support subscriptions. Contact us at https://www.isc.org/contact/ for more information. bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
