- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:42:34 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 21/04/2014 3:08 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 20 Apr 2014, at 4:36 pm, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > >> The draft wording however is not limited to "proxies". Which was my >> initial report of there being a problem. > > Yes; we've discussed this a few times on-list, but it never seemed to have made it onto the issues list. > > I've created <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/462>. > > Any thoughts about the suggestion there? I think we should go with the SHOULD NOT. The cases that need to be enumerated IMO are that the proxy either; a) drop the header completely (consumes with decision not to use the alt service) b) uses the alt-service (as if it were the client) c) passes it on un-touched (the case being forced by the MUST NOT) I agree that a proxy has no place adding/changing field values the client gets. But consuming the header is a different proposition which has several uses already mentioned. Amos
Received on Monday, 21 April 2014 04:43:35 UTC