Re: Design: Ignored Unknown Frame Types and Intermediaries

On 5/14/2013 4:46 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> But I agree that we should limit what non-version-changing extensions
> are allowed to do. We should require that if the extension is either
> ignored by the recipient or removed by a middlebox, no harm would be
> done (except the new functionality not working)

It's hard to tell if an extension may be safely ignored at the protocol 
level.  Would there be any use in having a "critical extension" bit, 
indicating an extension frame that must not be silently dropped by 
intermediaries or ignored by the destination server?

Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 13:39:54 UTC