- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 22:04:06 -0700
- To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 31 August 2013 18:18, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > I suck at editorial stuff so I expect people to object to my wording, but > here's some proposed text (I'd be happy to put together a pull request too)? > Does this clarify whatever you find muddy? This is exactly the sort of response I wanted to encourage. The only problem I see with your proposed text is that it says nothing about what forms the tunnel and its characteristics. Basically, I think that a full edit for this needs to take a good hard look at 2817. This is a good start, but there's a bit more required. Note that changing what colon-headers are required, especially prohibiting :scheme is going to be a little bit of a surprise to some. (And it will compress less well.) Can we just say that its value is ignored instead? Other issues: this tunneling will limit the size of TLS frames if the intent is to have them in a single HTTP/2.0 frame. That might need some mention.
Received on Sunday, 1 September 2013 05:04:33 UTC