W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013


From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:42:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNe6Wgso8V-L2xmaptXC01P8OftsH7O3oRjSap=QE7KuxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>
The damage of telling everyone to not use http/2 is that they use http/1.
So, bothersome but not fatal.
The complexity of getting this right is lower than that of getting other
features right.

In any case we'll know more after a couple drafts worth of implementations
have had the experience of deployment.

Until then, who knows if this is a useful tradeoff? :)

On Jun 19, 2013 1:33 AM, "Eliot Lear" <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> On 6/19/13 12:23 AM, Roberto Peon wrote:
>  Assuming that a server is dealing with a buggy client, it seems like a
> good idea to have a mechanism that tells the client to GOAWAY, and don't
> use this protocol when coming back.
> What makes you think an already broken client would handle this situation
> correctly?  Worse, if implemented incorrectly by the server, you end up
> telling everyone to go away and not come back.  Don't get that code wrong!!
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 16:42:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:11 UTC