- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:23:56 -0800
- To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7 February 2014 13:58, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > Unhandled SETTINGS MUST be ignored, though. I'll note that there was subsequent discussion on this point that concluded with what we have in the spec. I know Roberto in particular was sad at this conclusion, but I got the sense that this was another case of "done > perfect". I got the sense that there was a reasonably firm commitment to preventing extension for frame types. There might be frame types that don't interact with the protocol state in any way, but most of the functions those can, to a large extent at least, be fulfilled at higher layers. Forbidding setting extension is less popular, since there is arguably less risk that settings could be used to break things. At the same time, it's hard to imagine something that couldn't be fulfilled through other avenues. I feel obliged to point out that we've started to set the bar pretty high for adding new features, and this could be conceived of as a new feature. It would have to come with some fairly strong justification.
Received on Friday, 7 February 2014 23:24:24 UTC