W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Design: Ignored Unknown Frame Types and Intermediaries

From: Albert Lunde <atlunde@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:39:19 -0500
Message-ID: <51923E87.9040505@panix.com>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 5/14/2013 4:46 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> But I agree that we should limit what non-version-changing extensions
> are allowed to do. We should require that if the extension is either
> ignored by the recipient or removed by a middlebox, no harm would be
> done (except the new functionality not working)

It's hard to tell if an extension may be safely ignored at the protocol 
level.  Would there be any use in having a "critical extension" bit, 
indicating an extension frame that must not be silently dropped by 
intermediaries or ignored by the destination server?
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 13:39:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC