Skip to content

upgrade example shouldn't use HTTP/2.0 #112

Closed

Description

@reschke

...because that might be misleading given that HTTP/2 now exists.

Activity

  1. MikeBishop commented on Jun 29, 2018

    @MikeBishop
    Contributor

    Make it h2c. 😉

  2. royfielding commented on Jun 30, 2018

    @royfielding
    Member

    That is the mechanism and syntax for upgrading to h2 within an HTTP/1.1 connection, so I see no reason to change it. Whether it is h2 or h2c depends on TLS being underneath (and a twisted view of history). This is the kind of thing one might do over a local socket or localhost connection.

  3. MikeBishop commented on Jun 30, 2018

    @MikeBishop
    Contributor

    But the example as it stands is invalid (that isn't the token for HTTP/2), and 7540 doesn't define using Upgrade to reach h2, only h2c.

  4. mnot commented on Jul 1, 2018

    @mnot
    Member

    Yes, this should be changed; it will confuse some.

    Suggest websocket since that's actually in use.

  5. mcmanus commented on Jul 1, 2018

    @mcmanus
  6. royfielding commented on Jul 2, 2018

    @royfielding
    Member

    Personally, since you guys don't seem to understand that it is both a real world example and the correct token to use (in HTTP/1.1), I think it is useful as is. But if it really makes the h2 bubble happier, go ahead and change it to websocket. It is just an example.

  7. self-assigned this
    on Sep 3, 2019
  8. added a commit that references this issue on Sep 3, 2019
    8160102
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions