- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 23:05:04 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 4/06/2014 5:32 p.m., Mike Bishop wrote: > The second is what's in my draft -- I just copied your proposed version of DATA, added some extra flags, and called it a COMPRESSED_DATA frame. I think it's hard to sell it as an end-to-end frame for a couple reasons, but the biggest is that you don't have the opportunity for negotiation with the far side. That's why I keep coming back to an end-to-end frame that can be down-converted to a DATA frame if it hits a hop that doesn't support the extension. > I agree. The end-to-end is far better serviced by content-encoding already. A hop-by-hop replacement for transfer-encoding in an extension RFC would be great and does not need to hold up the core spec document. Amos
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 11:05:35 UTC