- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 15:51:11 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 23 May 2014 06:51, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >> Why push it down into the framing layer? > > Only because I forgot about those... > > Let me try the PR again. That's in part why I made it a PR rather > than a direct edit :) I think that the documentation of the problem > is still OK, just the reporting/handling part. I'll note that 431 > isn't an option for a client or intermediary that gets bombed by a > server, but I guess the implication there is that the response is > simply unusable in that case. OK, I've respun the PR. This pre-empts a lot of the discussion that continues, so I won't merge it in anticipation of some sort of alternative conclusion to that thread.
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 22:51:39 UTC