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

Re: HTTP/2 vs 1.1 semantics: intermediate codes

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:07:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVeG5W6Mp-Eh3SbMAXkythtb3s5+R3ELukvpM+U0YOiUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 12 June 2014 00:16, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Is there a technical reason why we can't just allow them in HTTP/2?

The addition of 1xx codes has been discussed at some length at interim
meetings.  Various options have been proposed, though none were
particularly appealing.

The simple and obvious solution is to allow for multiple header
blocks.  Those with 1xx status codes would be ignored.  Then we would
have to deal with 100 and 101, which we positively don't want.  (Yes,
there have been some people arguing for 100, but I think we have
consensus on that point.)

In the 20+ years of HTTP, we've defined 3 1xx codes in total.

Of those,
  a. HTTP/2 provides a far superior alternative to 100
  b. HTTP/2 does not need 101.
  c. 102 has been long deprecated.

So while I can agree that the capability is interesting from a
theoretical standpoint, it's quite hard to justify spending effort on
a feature that is some combination of not needed, not wanted and not
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 17:08:07 UTC

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