- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 21:16:28 -0700
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Variation on it. From what I saw, you said: "If we need end-to-end extensions, then intermediaries need to ignore, but pass, unknown stuff. However, I think that we need to allow for intermediaries that don't want to assume the risks associated with extensions and allow intermediaries to drop unknown frames, but only if they drop *all* unknown frames." The language in this I don't like is "drop unknown frames". It's not clear what "drop" means. What I'm saying is, you either pass the unknown end-to-end frames through or send an RST_STREAM... meaning, if you encounter an unknown frame on a stream and you don't intend to pass it through, you drop the entire stream, and not just that frame. - James On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 October 2013 12:22, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: >> Either let everything thru, >> or let nothing thru. Period. > > That's exactly what I said, isn't it?
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 04:17:15 UTC