- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 20:09:10 +0200
- To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2016-10-13 19:46, Mike Bishop wrote: > Well, I can point at one, though it's not exactly a model of perfect HTTP C-E integration design.... Looking at https://winprotocoldoc.blob.core.windows.net/productionwindowsarchives/MS-PCCRTP/[MS-PCCRTP].pdf, there are additional headers that carry the client's parameters (which the server will need if it chooses that coding) and then carry the server's selections back. > > Most notable (and probably the worst choice :-) ) is that rather than defining a new C-E value for v2, the parameters include the client's min/max supported versions, and the server tells the client which version it used in a response header. ...and SDCH will also need a way to send compression related parameters, right? Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2016 18:09:46 UTC