Re: http/2 and "extensions"

In message <>, Martin Thomson w
>On 15 July 2014 14:46, Matthew Kerwin <> wrote:
>> My feeling, coming from my encoded data thing, is that the more "real" the
>> extension (i.e. not just communicating nice-to-know metadata, but actually
>> doing something semantic), the more design and text is going to be dedicated
>> to dealing with unsupportive or broken peers.
>Which leads back to a preference for a new protocol label at that point.

What makes you think that broken proxies will not be broken in this aspect also ?

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 Wednesday, 16 July 2014 08:50:27 UTC