- From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 11:25:39 +0100
- To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Mike Bishop" <michael.bishop@microsoft.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Le Dim 10 novembre 2013 19:11, James M Snell a écrit : > -1 on the "may be dropped". As I've mentioned before, silently > dropping end-to-end frames could significantly impact the semantics of > the stream data and could have very bad unintended side effects. The > result is that end-to-end extension frames become impossible to rely > upon. The better (and more reliable) option is to require that > end-to-end frames are either passed through untouched or the stream is > closed with an RST_STREAM if the endpoint does not intend to pass them > along. And the better option will live only as long as no one figures how to push objectionable optional content such as ads, trackers or cookies with it, then you'll see those frames dropped regardless of what the spec says. It's an unfortunate reality today that the people who control web sites have not always the best interests of the people who consult them in mind, and silently dropping parts of the stream at the browser or at any intermediary level is here to stay. You can not specify morals in the spec and giving an all-or-nothing power to one of the nodes involved in the http/2 dialog is not going to work. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2013 10:26:09 UTC