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

Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:22:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcvN47-WLySgRVyS83-5A6FMZqGeA726nZQ1kRi2aePXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
The other presented case was doing stuff like an RPC protocol on HTTP2, but
I suspect that is best done in an extension now.
-=R


On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 23/07/2014 2:08 a.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > I don’t hear a strong direction on this issue from the WG, so I’m
> inclined to let the editor take the lead here unless strong opinions emerge
> (keeping in mind the changes to allow a non-final status code, which means
> the wording needs to be a bit different here).
> >
> > The choices seem to be:
> >
> > - PROTOCOL_ERROR upon a HEADERS where not expected
>
> +1.
>
> >
> > - ignore a HEADERS that’s not expected
>
> -1.
>
> IIRC, the presented use case for this has been to maintain checksums on
> HTTP/1.1 chunked payloads. That is far better done as a checksum field
> on DATA if the proponents of that want to push for it (or make an
> extension for payload integrity checking). chunked checksums being a
> hop-by-hop feature anyway which does not traverse middleware at all well
> these days.
>
> Amos
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 00:22:28 UTC

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