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

Re: CONNECT and HTTP/2.0

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:27:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWMTGTFyG__aqUX9jrcDaqOHU2bVfoK+1gthNbQzp_k5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24 September 2013 11:02, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> Sorry for the delay. https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/249.

That's OK, I was on vacation (that is, closer to 100% of the time than yours).

I've accepted the pull request, but I think that there are a few
things to resolve.

1. The :host header.  I'm not comfortable with the MAY on this.  Given
that this is 100% new functionality, I think that we need better
justification than the fact that some HTTP/1.x (or even 0.9) clients
set different values for the target URI and Host header.  Just because
they did something wrong, it doesn't mean that we have to.  Requiring
the omission of :host doesn't lose anything, ... unless existing
proxies are doing something special based on its value.

2. I need to find some way to incorporate the comments that Ilari made
here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JulSep/1036.html
 (Not including the suggestion to fix the scheme to "tcp", even though
it's a very interesting idea.  But that opens up a whole new can of
extensibility worms that I'd rather leave closed.)  We also need to
say that implementations are obligated to send END_STREAM as soon as
possible if they see END_STREAM, otherwise we violate assumptions in
TCP.  Those more familiar with TCP can correct me here if I've
misinterpreted RFC 793 or am ignorant of actual behaviour.
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 21:27:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:18 UTC