Re: #445: Transfer-codings

On Apr 5, 2014 5:33 AM, "Michael Sweet" <msweet@apple.com> wrote:
>
> -1 on this.
>
> First, why a separate flag when you can just look at a couple bytes in
the DATA?

Which bytes? Are you suggesting magic number heuristics? Or extra metadata
packed into DATA frames?

> Second, what about all of the security considerations that have been
brought up?

If they're the same as the ones Martin mentioned earlier, see my reply
there.

> And finally, HTTP/2 is not supposed to introduce new semantics.  If you
have TE: gzip/compress/zlib, then that needs to be proposed separately
since it applies equally to HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2.

No, the only time TE applies equally to HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2 is if a 1.1<->2
gateway blindly forwards transfer-encoded data; but they're not even meant
to do that in the 1.1<->1.1 case. TE is a hop-by-hop header.

HTTP/2 is explicitly supposed to alter transport, and TE is a transport
issue. That's why it's ok (but deficient) that the current draft alters
what's allowed in TE headers.