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

Re: Richard Barnes' Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:05:53 +1100
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "httpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <httpbis-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "draft-ietf-httpbis-http2.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2.all@tools.ietf.org>
Message-Id: <9D431302-2084-445B-A079-EA84FF979E33@mnot.net>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Hi Richard,

Was there anything else that we need to talk about before you release the DISCUSS?

Cheers,


> On 29 Jan 2015, at 5:03 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 28 January 2015 at 00:24, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
>> "The server MUST include a value in the ":authority" header field for which
>> the server is authoritative (see Section 10.1).  If a client receives a
>> PUSH_PROMISE for a resource for which the server is not authoritative, it
>> MUST respond with a stream error (Section 5.4.2) of type PROTOCOL_ERROR."
>> 
>> (Or maybe STREAM_REFUSED?  Since these requests should not be processed at
>> all by the client.)
> 
> WFM.  (STREAM_REFUSED doesn't add value in this context: we don't need
> to worry about retries, because retries are allowed anyway.)
> 
> I'll keep my proposed MUST NOT; no harm in having extra coverage for
> something important like this.
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 30 January 2015 05:06:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:36 UTC