- From: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 01:06:03 +0800
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014–07–01, at 1:01 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30 June 2014 09:54, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote: >> “Tackle”? It’s an editorial issue, and reviewing GitHub it essentially boils down to specifying what sort of flush should occur. >> >> I don’t think anyone’s talking about removing END_SEGMENT or WebSocket support. It’s essential to interactive applications, including the sort of things that WebSockets often does. This is something all proxies should handle going forward. > > I think that people are. From some perspectives, END_SEGMENT is cruft > and WebSocket support isn't present. From the other perspective, > thewebsocketprotocol can be shoehorned in and that's good enough. Special-purpose proxies can ignore any part of the protocol that their designer knows will not occur in the local environment. It’s not a normative issue. Fully conforming proxies should support interactive applications.
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 17:06:38 UTC