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

Re: END_SEGMENT? (#537)

From: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:19:06 -0700
Message-ID: <53B19C0A.7030707@fb.com>
To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 06/30/2014 09:54 AM, David Krauss 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.
>

David, we had a discussion on this thread about two weeks ago about the 
layering violations and constraints on intermediaries that are 
introduced by END_SEGMENT and whether END_SEGMENT is needed for the core 
spec.

Also, I brought up the fact that END_SEGMENT's requirements on 
intermediary behavior is not compatible with HTTP/1.1 interfaces. There 
is no concept of segments in HTTP/1.1, so there is no way to transfer 
those semantics through an HTTP/1.1 interface.

I've updated the linked issue in the subject line.
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 17:19:30 UTC

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