Re: #535: No 1xx Status Codes

In message <>, 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