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

Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:01:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbd=SR1nq32YxE+zpf-JM0T5-S49hkC7mgOdwV_SuH--7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
In the absence of an end to end extensibility model at the framing layer,
no there's no need for intrastream header blocks.
On Jul 20, 2014 2:47 PM, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> In message <F0B4AE61-FC0A-4FFB-8C54-F99677D25E18@mnot.net>, Mark
> Nottingham wri
> tes:
> ><https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/557>
> >
> >Section 8.1 already says:
> >
> >> Header blocks after the first that do not terminate the stream are not
> >part of an HTTP request or response.
>
> Is there a HTTP/2 need for this functionalty, or is this
> some attempt to carve out space to tunnel other stuff under the
> disguise of HTTP/2 ?
>
> I think we should reserve HEADERS exclusively for HTTP semantics,
> and make thel appearance of HEADERS in any other context should be
> a protocol error.
>
> If people want to tunnel other protocols through HTTP/2, they should
> define the necessary frame types for it.
>
> --
> 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 Sunday, 20 July 2014 22:01:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 September 2019 17:48:20 UTC