Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt

• From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
• Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:19:07 -0700
• To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
• Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <CABkgnnW73D3-dFb3=uJr8WvanYsUPTbj=JznfVxrMTbnyL-YXA@mail.gmail.com>

On 30 June 2014 02:29, Sergio Garcia Murillo
<sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:
> In case of using just one token (i.e. "webrtc"), then I think what is
> misleading for me is the header name. IMHO if we are talking about
> protocols, they are ice and turn, if we are talking about webrtc, then it is
> something different. How about Tunneled-Application or
> Tunneled-Application-Protocol?

It's still a protocol.  But I have no objection to the former, some
small objection to the latter, but only with respect to verbosity.

Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 16:19:36 UTC