W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16, "5.5 Extending HTTP/2"

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:03:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVc6CYOJtVSYiTf9bVTKv18o8tpiurzjjBb=VdsyJ9g+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
BTW, https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/677

On 12 January 2015 at 08:51, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16.html#rfc.section.5.5>:
>
> "HTTP/2 permits extension of the protocol. Protocol extensions can be used
> to provide additional services or alter any aspect of the protocol, within
> the limitations described in this section. Extensions are effective only
> within the scope of a single HTTP/2 connection.
>
> Extensions are permitted to use new frame types (Section 4.1), new settings
> (Section 6.5.2), or new error codes (Section 7). Registries are established
> for managing these extension points: frame types (Section 11.2), settings
> (Section 11.3) and error codes (Section 11.4).
>
> Implementations MUST ignore unknown or unsupported values in all extensible
> protocol elements. ..."
>
> HTTP/2 inherits extensible protocol elements from HTTP/1.1, such as status
> codes and method names. These do not fall under "must ignore".
>
> Maybe clarify that this only applies to the extension points specific to the
> HTTP/2 wire format.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Sunday, 18 January 2015 21:03:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:42 UTC