- From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 23:56:04 +0200
- To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:36:30PM -0800, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote: > > People discussed allowing this sort of extensibility at the Zurich > interim. I think it was fairly contentious but overall we decided to > disallow it. You're absolutely right that this kind of extensibility > could have value, but I think we killed it off like we killed off all > other extensibility, since people should just use a different ALPN > token. How would extensions via ALPN scale? It seems to me that the negotiation scales very poorly (full exponential in independent case!) in number of available extensions. As for extensions via SETTINGS, it might be that the the model is not useful enough for negotiating extensions. Few example issues: - How would other end NAK such extension? - How would extensions needing two-way ACKs be supported? -Ilari
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 21:56:29 UTC