- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 13:13:26 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Yanick Rochon <yanick.rochon@gmail.com>, Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@oracle.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2016-07-11 12:57, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > ... >> It may not have been a good idea in the first place, but that's what we >> currently have in HTTP, both 1.* and 2. I'm arguing that it's better to >> live with it, and to make things as consistent as possible with respect >> to this. > > I couldn't possibly disagree more. > > We should eliminate and sunset as many of the warts of HTTP as we > reasonably can, in order to make it an easier and more efficient > protocol to understand and implement. > ... Maybe. But this is a complex change, and it will be hard to deploy. The intent of this draft was to describe something that works today with the semantics we have. Both are interesting things to do; I just believe that requiring to do both things at the same time is likely to kill the effort, or delay it significantly. > In particular, I find it very unintuitive that we would ever constrain > the JSON formats utility, in order to retain a misfeature like > repeated headers. How exactly is it "constrained"? Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 11 July 2016 11:14:06 UTC