- From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 14:23:49 +0100
- To: "David Schinazi" <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>, "Lucas Pardue" <lucas@lucaspardue.com>
- Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Same. An erratum seems fine in this case. On Tue, Jun 4, 2024, at 01:58, David Schinazi wrote: > I agree with you, I think that these points were just oversights. Might > be worth filing errata? > David > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 4:54 PM Lucas Pardue <lucas@lucaspardue.com> wrote: >> __ >> Hello, >> >> RFC 8441 states >> >> > A new pseudo-header field :protocol MAY be included on request HEADERS indicating the desired protocol to be spoken on the tunnel created by CONNECT. The pseudo-header field is single valued and contains a value from the "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Upgrade Token Registry" located at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-upgrade-tokens> >> >> This seems to have two problems on the letter of the requirement IMO: >> >> 1) An HTTP/2 request could span HEADERS and CONTINUATION. It would be weird to do that with the early pseudo-headers but I don't think it's illegal >> >> 2) Tokens are an extension point, and its ok to send values that aren't formally registered, and never will vlbe, in the IANA registry. >> >> Anyone else have opinions on this? >> >> Cheers >> Lucas
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2024 13:24:17 UTC