- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:48:10 +0200
- 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