- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 06:23:52 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- cc: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CABkgnnXxXUqSmXzQ_2VE5==bSdutBVPZBOBWzctLrydY8AHJ9g@mail.gmail.com>, Martin Thomson w rites: >On 15 July 2014 14:46, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote: >> My feeling, coming from my encoded data thing, is that the more "real" the >> extension (i.e. not just communicating nice-to-know metadata, but actually >> doing something semantic), the more design and text is going to be dedicated >> to dealing with unsupportive or broken peers. > >Which leads back to a preference for a new protocol label at that point. What makes you think that broken proxies will not be broken in this aspect also ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 08:50:27 UTC