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

[Cory Benfield <[e-mail]>]

> On 1 Nov 2016, at 06:32, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I’m right there with you Julian. The 1XX response category gets to be another marker pointing us to the lesson the IETF has been learning for the past decade or so: extension points on a specification that no-one uses rust over time and become unusable.

In this case, I think the 1XX problem is more oversight than anything else. The problems in all these cases are tractable, and can be fairly easily fixed. It’s just that someone needs to spend that time.

>> For HTTP/2, my tendency leans toward using HTTP headers rather than
>> having its own way of negotiation, considering the fact that the
>> information transferred using Early Hints could be considered
>> end-to-end rather than hop-by-hop, and also that we can expect HPACK
>> to compress Accept-EH header efficiently.
> 
> For HTTP/2, I think we should push stronger to fix the code and not negotiate at all.

So for HTTP/2 the state of play is different. There are far fewer implementations, and those that exist are better and more actively developed. I’m happy to say for h2 that we don’t require negotiation of the extension.

Cory