- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:26:10 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <A588B9A5-403F-44B5-B9FB-CBEB71B35FEE@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham writes: >Re: Trailers - I don't think that we should use them as an exemplar for = >the features we put into HTTP/2; they barely made it in, and they are = >explicitly ignorable in HTTP/1. Personally, the argument you're making = >drives me to want to remove trailers, not add 1xx. The only active usecase for 1xx I have ever seen is 100-Continue, and that functionality is already available using the windows in HTTP/2.0. +1 for no 1xx. At one point I surveyed trailer support and found that it was not support at a level where one could even hope to spur further support. Architecturally, trailers suffer from the exact same problem as CONTINUE, pushing buffering costs from transmitters to receivers. This is a bad idea because receivers suffer much higher traffic densities than transmitters and they need to defend themselves against DoS attacks. Trailers, like CONTINUATION makes receiver-buffering available as a DoS tactic. +1 for removing trailers. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 08:26:35 UTC