- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 13:06:52 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- In message <ECE83331-ACDD-42E7-B99C-3E4E4C66DD13@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri tes: >Stepping back, I think we're talking about a set of rules something like >this; >A. For a newly defined header field that explicitly uses the new format, > send it in the new format >B. For existing header fields, if their expression in the new format is > defined: > 1. If you have evidence that your peer can accept the new header > format, send them in the new format > 2. Otherwise, send them in the original format. >C. All other fields are always sent in the original, HTTP/1 format. Yes, something like that. However, this is digging deep into the extreme far end of the ideas I presented, and it seems rather too speculative to dig much further. I am far more interested in hearing what people think about the important part of the write-up: Deriving and generalizing a common header structure from existing HTTP1 header syntaxes ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 13:09:44 UTC