- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 05:48:50 +0100
- To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2016-11-13 13:36, Kazuho Oku wrote: > ... > I do not have a strong preference on whether if we should try to > rescue the broken implementations, but to me your report is > interesting in the fact that it shows the bounds of using header-based > negotiation to work-around such implementations. > > HTTP headers are end-to-end by default. Therefore a request header for > negotiating the use of 103 would go through an intermediary incapable > of handling 1xx correctly. We might consider designating the header > used for negotiation as a hop-by-hop header, but I'd be scared of > using a new token to the connection header (for interoperability > issues). > > In other words, using header-based negotiation for Early Hints only > limitedly improves interoperability. > ... ...but then, requiring HTTPS (in theory eliminating broken middle boxes) would, right? Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 14 November 2016 04:49:32 UTC