Update inets from RFC2616 to RFC7230?
Tue Oct 6 12:37:56 CEST 2020
The differences are mostly around behavioral differences in clients then
and now. RFC723x specs are more strict in general (because clients have
improved over the years).
Don't waste your time doing a full review though because there's a new
update to the spec that's being worked on:
There might also be an update to the HTTP/2 RFC soon.
Test suite you could get a good start from these, particularly the first
I'll update them when the new RFCs are out.
On 06/10/2020 12:19, Kenneth Lundin wrote:
> 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
> 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
> <mailto:toraritte@REDACTED>> wrote:
> Are there any plans to update inets to conform to RFC7230? Couldn't
> find much on google.. (one example is
> 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?
More information about the erlang-questions