Re: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-early-hints-status-code-00.txt

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2016-11-01 08:08, Kazuho Oku wrote:
> 2016-11-01 15:32 GMT+09:00 Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>:
>> On 2016-11-01 02:32, Kazuho Oku wrote:
>>>
>>> Cory, Julian, thank you for looking into the I-D.
>>>
>>> Thank you for looking into the existing implementations using Python.
>>> Your research makes it evident that some kind of negotiation is
>>> mandatory if we are going to use 103 on the public Internet.
>>
>>
>> Having to negotiate it makes me sad.
>
> Thank you for the suggestion.
>
> I think having negotiation is a good thing for Early Data, since there
> is no point in sending Early Data to a client that does not recognizes
> the headers included in the informational response. So I'd expect that
> if we define an Accept-EH header, a server serving to the Internet
> will send Early Data only when the header has included in the request.
>
> OTOH, we do not need to use Accept-EH header on a deployment in which
> the peer is known to support Early Data.
>
> Considering the two, having a clause like the following (with
> non-normative text explaining the background) seems reasonable to me:
>
>     “a server SHOULD NOT send Early Data unless the client has sent an
> Accept-EH header”
>
> Does this look fine to you?

I would avoid BCP14 keywords here. If a recipient fails because it has 
broken 1xx handling, I wouldn't want a statement like that support them 
in their view.

> ...

Best regards, Julian