- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:14:58 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <53C7CAD4.6080909@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes: >> We can do 100 better, don't need 101 and we have no idea how any >> future 1xx codes might or might not work anyway. > >The last part doesn't make any sense. > >My proposal is to treat them *exactly* as in 1.1. > >What exactly do you mean by "might or might not work"? We've seen only one new additional 1xx code in ages and we already regretted it. I'm against adding a "contigency plan" to HTTP/2 on the unlikely probability that 103 will ever happen, given that 1xx already works like shit in HTTP/1. Nobody says we cannot add support for 1xx later, if it suddenly transpires to be a killer-app for something. In the meantime I propose we add a flag to HEADERS (ON_YOUR_SIGNAL ?) and give it the meaning "I'll send the body when you send me a WINDOWS UPDATE" and close the long sad saga of 1xx dysfunctionality. -- 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 Thursday, 17 July 2014 13:15:21 UTC