Hi Martin On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 5:33 PM Martin Duke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If 4.1.1.1 is accurate, then shouldn't there be a registry for HTTP/3 > pseudoheaders? IIUC pseudoheader extensions are not possible in HTTP or > HTTP/2, so this is an H3-specific registry. > > > HTTP/2 does allow pseudo-header extension. See RFC 8441 which defines the :protocol pseudo-header[1] to allow WebSockets over H2. We follow H2's example, maybe there was good reason not to have a registry or maybe it was an oversight? [1] - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8441#section-5 Cheers, Lucas >
