- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 23:38:32 +0200
- 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