Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

2.1 Client/Server Messaging #142

Closed
mnot opened this issue Oct 10, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed

2.1 Client/Server Messaging #142

mnot opened this issue Oct 10, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@mnot
Copy link
Member

mnot commented Oct 10, 2018

2.1. Client/Server Messaging still is HTTP/1.1-specific. Suggested deletions below:

A client sends an HTTP request to a server in the form of a request message, beginning with a request-line that includes a method, URI, and protocol version (Section 3 of [Messaging]), followed by header fields containing request modifiers, client information, and representation metadata (Section 5 of [Messaging]), an empty line to indicate the end of the header section, and finally a message body containing the payload body (if any, Section 6 of [Messaging]).

A server responds to a client's request by sending one zero or more non-final and exactly one final HTTP response messages, each beginning with a status line that includes the protocol version, a success or error code, and textual reason phrase (Section 4 of [Messaging]), possibly followed by header fields containing server information, resource metadata, and representation metadata (Section 5 of [Messaging]), an empty line to indicate the end of the header section, and finally a message body containing the payload body (if any, Section 6 of [Messaging]).

A connection might be used for multiple request/response exchanges, as defined in Section 9.3 of [Messaging].

Also, trailers?

@MikeBishop
Copy link
Contributor

Textual reason-phrase is also 1.1 specific.

@mnot
Copy link
Member Author

mnot commented Oct 10, 2018

@MikeBishop what's the implication of that? It's already suggested to be deleted.

@MikeBishop
Copy link
Contributor

It wasn't in a previous iteration of your suggestion -- see your edit history. Perhaps we noticed this in parallel?

@mnot
Copy link
Member Author

mnot commented Oct 11, 2018

Ah ;)

@mnot
Copy link
Member Author

mnot commented Oct 16, 2018

Somewhat related is #159.

reschke added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 13, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants