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

Re: h2 header field names

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:30:53 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20170.1409819453@critter.freebsd.dk>
--------
In message <843A253B-27A6-474A-B0DD-55DE2D8CA988@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
tes:

>I was responding to your question about the 'architectural decision'
>of a character set.

Yes, and I'm asking why that that particular decision is out of
bounds for HTTP/2.0, when we can kill other mis-uses of HTTP/1.1
without trouble ?

How is restricting the charset in a way which is compatible with
what the HTTP/1.1 spec says different from throwing out chunked
boundaries in a way which is compatible with what HTTP/1.1 says ?

Both a architectural decisions which means that some tiny subset of
HTTP/1.1 traffic won't tunnel through HTTP/2.0.

But one decision could be made with no trouble, the other is out of bounds ?

Why ?

-- 
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, 4 September 2014 08:31:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC