- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:29:41 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-07-17 15:14, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <53C7CAD4.6080909@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes: > >>> We can do 100 better, don't need 101 and we have no idea how any >>> future 1xx codes might or might not work anyway. >> >> The last part doesn't make any sense. >> >> My proposal is to treat them *exactly* as in 1.1. >> >> What exactly do you mean by "might or might not work"? > > We've seen only one new additional 1xx code in ages and we already > regretted it. Yes, and no (we didn't regret it). > I'm against adding a "contigency plan" to HTTP/2 on the unlikely > probability that 103 will ever happen, given that 1xx already works > like shit in HTTP/1. Are you referring to 100, 101, or other 1xx codes? > Nobody says we cannot add support for 1xx later, if it suddenly > transpires to be a killer-app for something. Chicken-and-egg: if you can't use 1xx over HTTP/2, it's very unlikely that that new status code 103 will ever be defined. > In the meantime I propose we add a flag to HEADERS (ON_YOUR_SIGNAL > ?) and give it the meaning "I'll send the body when you send me a > WINDOWS UPDATE" and close the long sad saga of 1xx dysfunctionality. That's a problem specific to *100*. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 13:30:16 UTC