- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 03:53:25 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 17/07/2014 5:40 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: > <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/535> > > So far, we've had two proposals for this issue; > > a) Accommodating non-final responses in HTTP/2 > See Julian's proposal at <https://gist.github.com/reschke/48ec30b0ac9d012b8b4e> for an idea of how this would look in the spec. > > b) Publishing a separate document deprecating 1xx status codes > Thereby preventing the establishment of new ones (HTTP/2 already defines how to deal with 100, and 101 is not relevant to this protocol. 102 was dropped by its primary use case, WebDAV, here: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4918#appendix-F.3>) > > I'd like to hear: > > 1) Your preferred outcome (if any) > 2) Whether you can live with the other option, and if not, why > > "I have no preference" is useful information too. > Given the two I prefer A. Nit: "arent't suitable" -> "are not suitable" I would also like to see A modified to include the clarification discussed on the gateway operations mapping the status codes 1.1->2 and 2->1.1 using WINDOW_UPDATE. With text explicitly deprecating the status 100 and 101 (only) in HEADERS. Amos
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 15:54:03 UTC