RE: #557 Intra-Message HEADERS frames was: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

On Sunday,13 July 2014 22:25, wrote:
> Most of those extensions [e.g. chunked encoding extensions] are not able to
> traverse any public networks, nor can they be created or consumed in regular APIs.

Agreed, however they were somehow possible in /1.1 (not a good enough reason to keep the feature IMO, but has been an argument used by others, including yourself, for keeping other features e.g. unlimited headers).

> We've tried really hard to avoid adding features for which we don't have a use
> case.  I think that we really need to take a hard look at this and consider how
> much more than HTTP we need to support.

Agreed.  I'm +0 on intra-message HEADERS frames, but if we keep the feature I suggest one of two paths forward:

1) At least add a section in the spec making it obvious this feature is available and give guidance for senders and recipients on how to use/deal with them (specifically, I'm thinking of the flags).

2) Add a METADATA frame type specifically for this purpose (the better option IMO)


This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 09:56:34 UTC