- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 07:49:51 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
-------- In message <CABkgnnVqH6TPi0OJ5iecYBj2gRich+DMLnxxQJcw9Qn6n-JPBA@mail.gmail.com>, Martin Thomson writes: >On 21 November 2016 at 20:23, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: >> I think using the angle brackets to say "this header is common >> structure" for privately defined headers should be part of this >> draft, so the future HPACKbis/H3 can semantically compress them >> without needing a white-list. > >I'm not yet convinced here. If that usage came with some other >guarantees (around whitespace use, for example, then maybe the >benefits would outweigh the costs. I think I have a comment in there somewhere, about whitespace being acceptable on input (to cater for the existing RFC723x headers) but not generated on output. > I'm definitely opposed to >recursion on the basis that complexity could kill this. If you don't like recursion, then don't use recursion ? I totally agree that recursion should not be used in in standards headers, but they are used in private headers and if want any chance there, we have to support it. Also: We should deliver tools, not policies. -- 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 Tuesday, 22 November 2016 07:50:23 UTC