Re: h2 definition of HTTP2-Settings

On Sep 2, 2014, at 10:26 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2014, at 6:42 am, Roy T. Fielding <> wrote:
>> Why use a 14 character required field-name to provide options for a
>> supposedly faster protocol?  Just call it "H2.
> Raised as <>.
> Roy, my take here is that since this is only sent once  when an upgrade is attempted  the size of the header field is less-than critical. If it were being sent on every request, itd be different, of course. Id be interested to hear what other people think.

It certainly isn't critical.  I just get annoyed when folks mint new
header fields that are longer than necessary to fit the purpose, mostly
due to my regret after minting If-Modified-Since.


Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 21:15:47 UTC