- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:41:37 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 09:53:57AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > >Do you have a use case in mind where it could really make a difference > >to have them ? > > I kind of liked the ideas behind 102 (which used the message for > progress reporting). I don't remember it to be honnest, I'll have to take a look. > My preference would be not to break 1.1 features that aren't broken > unless they clearly make HTTP/2 more complex. Is this the case here? At > least we shouldn't claim we have a better replacement if we don't. I agree with that principle. At the same time I think that if we can do without it's still better just to avoid carrying some of the interoperability issues we had (eg: clients don't wait too long for 100-continue, intermediaries have to consume all of them even if multiple responses are sent, etc). Willy
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 08:42:01 UTC