- From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:01:40 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- CC: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
WFM. -----Original Message----- From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 6:19 PM To: Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> Cc: HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>; Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Subject: Re: The "http-opportunistic" well-known URI | draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-encryption-06 On 29 June 2016 at 02:09, Kari hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote: > 1) Pick first matching member > 2) Pick last matching member > 3) Treat "http-opportunistic" as invalid > 4) Merge some way all matching members Or 5) pick any matching member. Or 6) leave it to chance. I think that given the state of JSON parsers, we should take option 6. Not all parsers will make duplicate keys detectable. And some generate fatal errors. Thus: A client MAY use any matching origin object, but by preference they SHOULD pretend that conflicting values don't exist. I think that's it's worth explaining why we choose this option too. How does https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/205 look to you?
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2016 16:04:42 UTC