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

Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:48:10 +0200
Message-ID: <5399694A.8020907@gmx.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-06-12 10:41, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 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).

But that's a problem specific to 100, right? I'm totally OK with that 
one being killed.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 08:48:45 UTC

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