Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)

On 30 June 2014 11:23, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's an argument for the new application negotiation token.
>
> Such a proxy should only be put in a place where no negotiation is necessary. Bailing out at any END_SEGMENT would be acceptable then.

There's an obvious counterargument to that one...

That's fine, but if you want to operate sans-standard, then you can
add your own END_SEGMENT.

I really don't care either way here.  I'm just enumerating the
options, and noting that what is currently specified isn't
particularly well-supported.  Our responsibility is to either more
clearly define it, or remove it.

Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 18:40:34 UTC