Alright, that implies an edit to 4.1.1.1. On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 18:44 Mark Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote:
> HTTP/2 didn't create a registry because pseudo-headers are not an > extensibility point on that protocol. The extensibility point that 8441 > uses is SETTINGS, which negotiates a change in the operation of the > protocol on a connection-by-connection basis. > > Creating pseudo-headers as a new extensibility point is a bad idea; it > will inevitably be misused, as the distinction between pseudo-headers and > actual header fields is fuzzy in several dimensions. If people want to > pursue this, I'd suggest taking it to the HTTP WG so as not to exceed the > charter of this WG. > > Cheers, > > > > On 17 Oct 2020, at 4:07 am, Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > >
