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

Re: [#202] reason phrase

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 23:38:32 +0200
Message-ID: <52016CD8.5000100@gmx.de>
To: 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
CC: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
On 2013-08-06 17:55, David Morris wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> On 2013-08-06 15:45, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/202
>>>
>>> #202 raises a question about the removal of the reason phrase.
>>>
>>> I haven't heard of cases where the reason phrase carries semantics.  I
>>> should hope that no implementation ever does that.
>>>
>>> Those people that require semantics should be using headers.  I like
>>> the current draft and would encourage people to leave this as it is.
>>
>> Right in principle.
>>
>> However, people who feel strongly about the reason phrase will then just go
>> ahead and mint a new header field; it would save everybody a lot of time if
>> they wouldn't have to and just use a predefined header field.
>
> I think I've seen code that examined the phrase but I don't recall where.
> I've found the phrase semi-useful in casual debugging with wire level
> data, but I'll freely agree that having a tool like wireshark add the
> phrase as part of its interpretation would be much better.

The trouble with that is that you loose data.

"Is the 308 I see in this trace a permanent redirect, or the thing 
Google drive implemented without caring to specify it?"

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 21:39:15 UTC

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