- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 16:01:01 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 15/09/2013, at 1:56 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2013-09-14 01:54, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> I've considered using them for a few things over the years. However, two things always stopped me; they aren't accommodated by Apis, and they aren't guaranteed to transit a hop. >> >> For the breach attacks, I don't think deprecating them harms things, since you can still sen them; in these mitigations, the payload / semantics don't matter, as long as something is there. > > You can send them, but you'd violate a "SHOULD NOT". > > If we believe using them is ok (and you made it sound like that), we consequently should back out the change to deprecate it (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1535#file1>) > >> Personally, I'm ok either way; the important thing is to document their behavior / limitations. Deprecation I one way to do that, but we could do it in prose too. >> ... > > What exactly does not to be documented? Assuming s/not/need/ Document that they may not be persisted beyond a, because chunking (and therefore extensions) don't have any semantic in the message itself. Furthermore, that they're not available in most implementations. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 15 September 2013 06:01:29 UTC