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

Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:41:37 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20140612084137.GA4315@1wt.eu>
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 09:53:57AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >Do you have a use case in mind where it could really make a difference
> >to have them ?
> I kind of liked the ideas behind 102 (which used the message for 
> progress reporting).

I don't remember it to be honnest, I'll have to take a look.

> My preference would be not to break 1.1 features that aren't broken 
> unless they clearly make HTTP/2 more complex. Is this the case here? At 
> least we shouldn't claim we have a better replacement if we don't.

I agree with that principle. At the same time I think that if we can do
without it's still better just to avoid carrying some of the interoperability
issues we had (eg: clients don't wait too long for 100-continue, intermediaries
have to consume all of them even if multiple responses are sent, etc).

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 08:42:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC