On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Stefan Eissing < stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
> > > Am 19.04.2016 um 17:47 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>: > > > > I agree with your analysis, "h2" is not an upgrade candidate. > > > > "h2c" is an upgrade candidate. > > > > This isn't even an HTTP/2 issue (unless the working group reverses > themselves > > on accepting Upgrade: h2 protocol switching), until we accept Upgrade: > h2 we > > should be dropping h2 from the server Upgrade: response header. But do > let > > us know what the wg feedback is. > > While I do not feel strongly about this feature, I'd like to add that the > "Upgrade: h2" is sent out as that very mechanism is available to a client. > And I do not feel strongly because I do not know of a client that might be > able to use it. It is just the result of a sane software architecture that > this has become visible. > > We would probably not be talking about this if some Javascript client > implementation had not consciously decided to freak out on *any* Upgrade: > header from the server. > > If http-wg thinks that it should not be visible, I'll add the extra 'if' > to our implementation. > Skimming the responses, they just keep getting more and more amusing, and shining a candle to the absurdity of keeping this non-sequitur request response. Could you go ahead and add that conditional? We still haven't determined if the "reply Upgrade: once, then pretend we didn't" is valid HTTP/1.1, which I read that it is not. Need to come back to that topic. Cheers, Bill
