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

RE: #535: No 1xx Status Codes

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:44:33 +0000
To: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <mnot@mnot.net>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC201186FB16F@sem002pd>
On Friday,27 June 2014 11:20, julian.reschke@gmx.de wrote:
> On 2014-06-27 09:56, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/535>
>>
>> This seems like a re-opening of <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/264>. We discussed it a fair amount in the Seattle interim, and there was pretty strong support in the room for getting rid of 1xx status, especially since they're poorly supported in implementations, almost non-existant in APIs, and often don't survive hop-to-hop.
>>
>> Julian, anything to add? I'm inclined to close this as a duplicate unless there's significant new information...
>
> I still fail to see a compelling reason to remove them.
>
> Why do we keep trailers, but not 1xx? I'd like to understand how we draw the line.

I'm confused on that point myself.  According to Martin the calculus is very straightforward.  In which case 1xx should be included and transfer codings.

On Friday,27 June 2014 04:22, martin.thomson@gmail.com wrote:
> Can HTTP do X -> HTTP/2 MUST do X.


This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 09:45:09 UTC

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