- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:15:24 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sep 2, 2014, at 10:26 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > On 1 Sep 2014, at 6:42 am, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > >> Why use a 14 character required field-name to provide options for a >> supposedly faster protocol? Just call it "H2”. > > Raised as <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/601>. > > Roy, my take here is that since this is only sent once — when an upgrade is attempted — the size of the header field is less-than critical. If it were being sent on every request, it’d be different, of course. I’d be interested to hear what other people think. It certainly isn't critical. I just get annoyed when folks mint new header fields that are longer than necessary to fit the purpose, mostly due to my regret after minting If-Modified-Since. ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 21:15:47 UTC