- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 22:26:31 +0000
- To: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Mike Bishop" <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, "Yoav Nir" <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
so the proposal is to include some flag in all requests (but maybe not by some browsers) which can't be used by the server. That doesn't seem like a good use of resource. Or is tongue firmly planted in cheek on this one? Did you forget Chromium as well? ------ Original Message ------ From: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> To: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Cc: "Mike Bishop" <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>; "Yoav Nir" <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>; "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Sent: 10/06/2015 10:26:32 a.m. Subject: Re: Client certificates in HTTP/2 >On 9 June 2015 at 15:18, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: >> >> From an information theory POV it only carries any information if it >>may >> sometime not be sent. > >Sure, IE will send it, Firefox won't.
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2015 22:28:53 UTC