RE: Concrete format for signed responses

  *   3.6.1:  If you’re saying a client MAY do something other than what it MUST do per RFC7540, you might want to frame this as an extension.  In that vein, an HTTP/2 setting advertising support for this from the client might be in order.  You could also define a more specific error code for invalid unauthoritative pushes.
Seems reasonable. Do you have any favorite extensions I could copy from? Origin Frame is close, but it merely defines something that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-9.1 leaves vague, unlike this extension that explicitly reverses a MUST from RFC7540.

I recently started an, as yet, unpublished extension document and found Patrick’s Websocket proposal quite a nice example to base mine on. It’s available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mcmanus-httpbis-h2-websockets-02


Lucas



----------------------------

http://www.bbc.co.uk

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

---------------------