On 26 March 2014 12:02, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>wrote: > >> \Surely that would be *easier* to scavenge >> > > my reticence is not about implementation complexity in my client. > I understand. Sorry. The mandatory implied Accept-Encoding codifies a well worn and useful >>> optimization.. Transfer-Encoding doesn't have the same track record to >>> justify adding it at the same level. >>> >> >> It's not at the same level; CE is above TE. >> > > I'm sorry to have created confusion. I mean I don't support the same level > of conformance (i.e. the suggested MUST decode) - not the same level in the > application. as I say, I'm pretty neutral on defining negotiation of it. > That makes sense. In that case I don't disagree; forcing it with a MUST-level requirement, or even a SHOULD, is not the right approach. Maybe a best practice guideline, if it's decided that it is, in fact, best practice. That said, I'm pretty strongly *for* supporting the negotiation in the first place. Maybe it needs to be something that's clearly a part of HTTP/2, freeing it from the stigma attached to the existing TE/Transfer-Encoding headers. After much deliberation I have a crazy idea: introduce a new frame type for hop-by-hop headers. As far as I can see, we've eliminated connection headers (and the Connection header) from HTTP/2, with the exception of "TE: trailers", and I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to reintroduce them, at least not through the HEADERS frame. I can think of a couple of benefits: * It would be easier to clearly distinguish hop-by-hop and end-to-end concerns (e.g. hopefully help clear up some of the CE/TE confusion). * It would provide more flexibility than, say, a settings parameter or a flag in a data frame, by allowing the same type of coding negotiation currently allowed in HTTP. * It would be extensible, allowing experimental headers, not unlike HH from [draft-nottingham-http-browser-hints-05]. * It also makes it easier for people to ignore them ;) Does anyone have a reason (aside from YAGNI) that we wouldn't want to pursue this new frame type? -- Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2014 04:06:56 UTC