- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 09:45:21 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 16 July 2014 22:40, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > 1) Your preferred outcome (if any) I've described this elsewhere. We've very few examples upon which to base this decision: 100 is generally just bad, 101 is generally agreed to be unnecessary, and 102 is deprecated. But the pattern that I'm seeing here is that these are functions that generally related to protocol mechanics. The reason we agreed that 100-continue was OK to drop was that we had something roughly equivalent in WINDOW_UPDATE. The reason that we all agree 101 is unnecessary is that we have ALPN and Upgrade (from HTTP/1.1). My hypothesis is that mechanisms that operate at this level are best addressed at the framing layer and should be constructed there. Julian's proposal ports a *mechanism* from HTTP/1.1, not a feature. I think that we're fine as we are now. If someone wants to define 107 (Gossip about Sheryl's choice in clothing), then that's how that might manifest in HTTP/1.1, but we can just make an extension frame for that in HTTP/2. And I'm guessing that the HTTP/2 extension will deploy with a much higher success rate.
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 16:45:48 UTC