Re: #536: clarify extensibility for :pseudo header fields

Personally - 

On 2 Jul 2014, at 4:30 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp <> wrote:

> In message <>, David Krauss writes:
>> On 2014=9607=9602, at 2:07 PM, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
>>> Now I'm confused. We're currently talking about whether extra :headers =
>> are a hard error when http/2 is in use. What's an ALPN-basis API?
> I always assumed that the :headers only were HTTP/2s internal way of
> representing the first line of HTTP/1 messages on the wire, not a way
> to add an entirely new namespace to HTTP headers/metadata ?


> If some extensions need namespaces in HTTP headers, we should add
> namespaces which will (or can be made to) work in both HTTP/1,
> HTTP/2 and any future HTTP versions, not latch onto an implementation
> detail in one particular version of HTTP.

+1 -- although I think they're just headers... it could be that we add structure to header field-names (indeed, I saw that suggested privately very recently), but we're not yet there.

> Traditionally namespaces delimiters have been ':' but that will certainly
> break too many HTTP/1 implementations to be feasible, but there are plenty
> of ASCII characters available that could be used: '=', '/' and so on.
> In other words:  Please limit :headers to the ones in and
> and make attempts to smuggle any other :header through a hard protocol error.


Mark Nottingham

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 06:32:19 UTC