Update inets from RFC2616 to RFC7230?

[Kenneth Lundin]

Hi,

It would be interesting to hear what you think is missing to make us
conform to RFC7230? I think we have taken in support for parts of RFC7230
and that our statement regarding RCF2616 could be updated so say RFC7230
for quite many functions. Would be good to have a list of what is missing
to be RFC7230 conformant and then we can take it from there.
It would also be interesting to have test cases related to RFC7230
conformance.

So I would say that contributions could be accepted if they don't introduce
incompatibilities for current users.

/Kenneth , Erlang/OTP Ericsson

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:40 AM Gulyás Attila <toraritte@REDACTED> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Are there any plans to update inets to conform to RFC7230? Couldn't find
> much on google.. (one example is https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/2206)
>
> I know there's a plethora of modern http client and server projects out
> there, but there are good use cases to use only the built-in app, and if it
> is already in there, why not keep it up to date? Unless I missed the
> announcement that it is planned to be phased out.
>
> I presume the answer will be along the lines of having little time for it
> (as there have been tons of great additions to the language in the past
> releases). If that's the case, would contributions be accepted towards this
> goal?
>
> Appreciatively,
> Attila
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20201006/0e1eabbe/attachment.htm>