W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:03:20 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnU2xq41VbJ3pyjVvrVMZ+tr9OM8EDHoHfPQ4yzDDqwEkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7 November 2016 at 18:40, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> In retrospect, it's a bit of a shame that we have this requirement in H2: "All pseudo-header fields MUST appear in the header block before regular header fields." If not for that, we could send an "early" HEADERS followed by the :status etc. in a CONTINUATION.

I don't think that this is a problem.  I mean, for requests it means
that routing based on the URL can happen without arbitrary buffering.
That we also did it for responses is perhaps unnecessary, but it's a
little bit of certainty and opening the door for progressive
generation of headers also opens the door to new classes of ambiguity
as well.  Especially since we still allow individual header fields to
come in piecemeal.  I think that I prefer Kazuho's approach.

The progressive response means that this is OK for progressive things.
I wouldn't want to see a server change its mind about something;
content-type might be hazardous, for example.
Received on Monday, 7 November 2016 09:03:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 7 November 2016 09:03:57 UTC