- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 11:25:49 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 06:45:26AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20140716054520.GC14304@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes: > >On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 01:52:35PM +1000, Greg Wilkins wrote: > > >The problem I'm seeing with this change is that you need one extra-byte to > >send litteral headers fields that are not present in the static table. Maybe > >on the other hand it rarely happens that they're not in the static table ? > > Sounds like a good way to persuade people to not create new headers all > the time :-) Good point :-) > Which reminds me: > > Should we fold "X-Forwarded-For" to "Forwarded-For" as part of the > compression ? No we must not do that, because X-whatever as its name implies is not standardized and can be used any other way. Also there are a very large number of systems around which make use of it and which will not yet be able to parse Forwarded, which has a different representation. Willy
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 09:26:23 UTC