W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: #557 Intra-Message HEADERS frames was: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:24:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVJUpvS3q=aD-aPifhF1fRVxGji5nYQMOF68cOphPG3fA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
Cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13 July 2014 13:04, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> wrote:
> I'd tend to agree that re-using HEADERS for intra-DATA is possibly
> confusing, but there will likely be use-cases.  (There was a thread that
> discussed this around two months or so ago --- it gets more interesting for
> when the END_* flags come into play.)
> As for "semantic" mapping to HTTP/1.1, chunked encoding extensions are the
> best match.  ICAP has one defined, and I'm aware of at least one proprietary
> chunked encoding extension used for hop-by-hop data integrity.

Most of those extensions are not able to traverse any public networks,
nor can they be created or consumed in regular APIs.

We've tried really hard to avoid adding features for which we don't
have a use case.  I think that we really need to take a hard look at
this and consider how much more than HTTP we need to support.
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2014 20:25:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC