W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Getting to Consensus on 1xx Status Codes (#535)

From: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:09:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CANV5PPUu9AF101HTzkxed3_B78sL+kWN9s9bLxFL=bOhfwvu1w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 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)
>

My preferred outcome is to drop 1xx entirely. We already have the existing
use cases of it covered (or removed from use), so there's no backwards
compatibility issues. (Not that there would have been much, given that 1xx
isn't terribly well supported in the wild, anyway.) And the general space
that 1xx covers seems like something that should be handled at the framing
layer in h2 - in other words, things that are protocol workings.

If anyone wants to support some future 1xx-like thing, that sounds like the
perfect match for an extension. Call the extension frame
"112_PLINY_THE_YOUNGER_DIED" for all I care.
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 18:09:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC