Update inets from RFC2616 to RFC7230?
Wed Oct 21 03:18:23 CEST 2020
Thank you, Kenneth!
I just realized that the tone of my initial email
feels like I'm trying to blame someone.. It was
supposed to be a simple question, and not sure why I
phrased it like that.
Thank you for the resources and for the basic
With my minimal HTTP experience, I was somehow
under the impression that RFC723x conformance
would provide extra benefit. I also forgot that
most well-written servers respect the robustness
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 10:37 AM Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED> wrote:
> 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
> * https://github.com/ninenines/cowboy/blob/master/test/rfc7230_SUITE.erl
> * https://github.com/ninenines/cowboy/blob/master/test/rfc7231_SUITE.erl
> I'll update them when the new RFCs are out.
> On 06/10/2020 12:19, Kenneth Lundin wrote:
> > 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
> > <mailto: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
> Loïc Hoguin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions