- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:26:25 -0700
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 15 July 2014 01:26, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > +1 for no 1xx. I'll note here that we've pushed a number of other things to extensions. Things that have use cases even. 1xx uses - or the examples of these that we actually have - tend to be things that map to HTTP/2 framing layer constructs. With extensions, I think that we can provide for the potential uses that 1xx codes were previously used for. And I think that enabling the functionality in this way is architecturally cleaner than propagating the specific mechanism from HTTP/1.1. 1xx fits the HTTP/1.1 architecture, but not HTTP/2. > +1 for removing trailers. It has always been marginal. I've not seen a whole lot of support for retaining them, but no one has really pushed hard. Maybe you can try.
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 17:26:52 UTC