Re: trailers and pseudo-headers

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2014-07-02 08:49, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2014, at 4:26 pm, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> should we say something about the case where a HEADERS frame containing trailing header fields contains pseudo-headers such as ":status"?
>>
>> Allowed? Forbidden? Bad idea?
>
> My .02 - probably, although <http://httpwg.github.io/specs/rfc7230.html#chunked.trailer.part> says:
>
>> A sender must not generate a trailer that contains a field necessary for message framing (e.g., Transfer-Encoding and Content-Length), routing (e.g., Host), request modifiers (e.g., controls and conditionals in Section 5 of [RFC7231]), authentication (e.g., see [RFC7235]and [RFC6265]), response control data (e.g., see Section 7.1 of [RFC7231]), or determining how to process the payload (e.g., Content-Encoding, Content-Type, Content-Range, and Trailer).
>
> ... which kind of already goes there. Maybe just note that they fall under that requirement?

Si.

The reason I ask is that people might start putting ":status" into a 
trailer and expect that to have an effect (it would be nice to have that 
feature, but it wouldn't map to 1.1...).

Best regards, Julian