Re: Making Implicit C-E work.

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
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/