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

Re: chunk-extensions

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 16:01:01 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8B15E70C-0B4F-4F2F-865A-FD533D3206CE@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:15 UTC