- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:01:08 -0700
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Received on Sunday, 20 July 2014 22:01:36 UTC
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