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

Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUmS+DS1-TMzn1yHWSHiM4dqhgTNYsT4RoZv8_=+_2_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com>
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

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