Re: CONNECT and HTTP/2.0

On 24 September 2013 11:02, William Chan (陈智昌) <> wrote:
> Sorry for the delay.

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
 (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