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

Re: http methods

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 13:56:39 +0200
Message-ID: <520E1377.8050800@gmx.de>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
CC: "William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-08-16 11:42, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <520DEE67.7000908@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes:
>> On 2013-08-13 13:06, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>> In message <520A112B.7010200@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes:
>>>> On 2013-08-13 09:37, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe what you say is based on the point of view of a very specific
>>>> component.
>>>
>>> I say this from the perspective I hold on HTTP/2.0:
>>>
>>> 	  1 Tbit/s per machine or it doesn't matter.
>>
>> Again: what does this have to do with the size of the vocabulary?
>
> It has something to do with how much work you have to do to find
> out how to treat/route a request.

How does the existence of extension methods makes that *harder*? If 
people tunnel through POST you will have to inspect custom headers 
and/or payloads to get the same information.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 11:57:06 UTC

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