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 19:12:54 +0200
Message-ID: <5399DF96.6090106@gmx.de>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-06-12 19:07, Martin Thomson wrote:
> 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.

When? Minutes?

> 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.)

Sounds good to me.

> 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
> used.

Chicken-and-egg. APIs do not give access to 1xx codes, so nobody is 
using them right now.

The same is true for trailers - why are they still in?

My th

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2014 17:13:29 UTC

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