W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2021

Re: Binary Messages

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 08:28:10 +0200
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <76941663-8987-689b-5f51-a0bbdff6c946@gmx.de>
Am 27.08.2021 um 02:19 schrieb Martin Thomson:
> Hi Julian,
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021, at 20:42, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> So it seems that the design is something like "the simplest possible
>> binary format which will support HTTP's base semantics" (and yes, I
>> agree with that approach in principle).
> Thanks.
>> Things that this will leave behind are:
>> - reason phrases (currently optional, only supported in HTTP/1.*)
> This is deliberate.  We did that for h2 and h3.
>> - "middlers" (in case we ever get to them)
> This was a harder choice, but I think that it's the right call.  Supporting them complicates things a bit and I don't think we've established their utility just yet.  Happy to explore how they might be integrated, but I wouldn't want to add them here until we decide that all the live protocols need them.

Which of course leads us to the question about how this format could in
theory be extended in the future in a backwards-compatible way.

>> - pseudo header fields other than those defined in H2
> (I thought about this, but I guess I neglected to write my conclusions down.)
> s/other than those defined in H2/other than for control data/
> This I think we can accommodate.  Other pseudo header fields can be added as if they were regular fields, using the same rules as h2.  That is, pseudo header fields go first.  Should that be documented?

I guess so (although I'm not a fan of that extension point :-).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 27 August 2021 06:28:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 27 August 2021 06:28:28 UTC