Re: mod_http2 and rejecting HTTP/1 requests...

> Am 09.12.2015 um 19:06 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : > > I think I know where this author was misguided... > > On Dec 9, 2015 11:19, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: > > > > And then I'm reading a really nonsensical comment in this FAQ... > > > > https://http2.github.io/faq/#implementation-questions

Re: mod_http2 and rejecting HTTP/1 requests...

I think I know where this author was misguided... On Dec 9, 2015 11:19, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: > > And then I'm reading a really nonsensical comment in this FAQ... > > https://http2.github.io/faq/#implementation-questions > Can I implement HTTP/2 without implementing HTTP/1.1? > "Requests wit

Re: mod_http2 and rejecting HTTP/1 requests...

Ignore this bit below; I was reading 2817 against 7230 and hadn't driven down into the 7231 spec yet, and apparently forgot to snip it before clicking send... the insistence on 426 vs poor advise to use 505 still stands On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > This leaves a

mod_http2 and rejecting HTTP/1 requests...

Back to h2c, RFC7231 spells out 6.5.15 . 426 Upgrade Required The 426 (Upgrade Required) status code indicates that the server refuses to perform the request using the current protocol but might be willing to do so after the client upg