W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Making Implicit C-E work.

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:45:00 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNDn0HXh3hoPnCpWttp97Tj6H2LHoz3erbB9CzB9wVZwnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 30 April 2014 07:33, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> For better or worse, C-E is what is deployed today. Many of my customers
> will not be writing custom servers, and as such to be deployable, we need
> solutions that will work with what is out there.
> Otherwise, the feature is effectively only of theoretical use for the
> majority of customers.
​Sorry, my 7 year old bumped my phone before and sent my message before I
was finished writing it.

Yes, C-E is what we have, but that's no reason to promote it to a MUST
support, and even less of a reason to promote it to a MUST support and
​have no way to opt out. Some people use C-E as a hack, some other people
disable the C-E as a hack; whose hack is the worse? You've made your call
there, but we don't all have to agree.

There is no valid justification for modifying HTTP semantics, and dictating
how people use entities, in HTTP/2.

> I don't dispute that one could use T-E over HTTP/2 for this, assuming that
> it was end-to-end (which, unfortunately, it will not be for quite some
> time).
​​Beside the point. I'm happy for people to use (and abuse) C-E. I'm just
not happy for us to promote or mandate it in the spec.

  Matthew Kerwin
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 21:45:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC