W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: can h2 extension frames carry data?

From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 08:11:21 +0000
Cc: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <60F8B5AA-F1B3-4CC5-9549-BB1CA89E0FDC@lukasa.co.uk>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>

> On 3 Nov 2015, at 06:36, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> Maybe it's not too late to define this classification, implementations
> will evolve, you just need to be careful to ensure the fallback for those
> not aware of it is nice enough. Typically if we define such classification
> and some intermediaries want to inspect contents and are not aware of it,
> well... they won't find the data they want in gzipped contents and that's
> all. That will give them incentive to implement the classification and/or
> support for gzip.

How would such a classification work? Add a new registry of frame types that must not be ignored, and then have H2 extensions specify whether their new frames fall into that category? That works, but only if implementations stay up-to-date with it. Any model I can think of where implementations will just naively DTRT requires changing the frame header, and that horse has bolted.


Received on Tuesday, 3 November 2015 08:11:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:40 UTC