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

Re: HTTP/2 extensions and proxies

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:34:30 +1300
Message-ID: <524961C6.4010104@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 30/09/2013 7:54 p.m., Gábor Molnár wrote:
> Currently, "Implementations MUST ignore frames of unsupported or
> unrecognized types.". As far as I see, the point of this is to enable
> the extension of the protocol in a backwards compatible way.
>
> But what about proxies? Should they ignore unrecognized frames too, or
> should they forward them? If they drop every unknown frame, it is not
> possible to specify end-to-end extensions. Is this constraint
> intentional? I think that end-to-end extensions would be useful, too,
> e.g. WebSockets over HTTP2 if a HTTP2 proxy does not support
> WebSockets explicitly.

And if they pass all unknown frames it will not be possible to develope 
future hop-by-hop extensions.

I think there needs to be a flag indicating which group the frame 
belongs to or splitting the frame type value range into two segments.
I suggest the uppermost bit of the frame type value be set to 1 on 
end-to-end frames.

Amos
Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 11:34:58 UTC

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