I wonder what happened between May 29, 2013 and July 8, 2013? Could it be "U.S., British intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program"?
right , so originally is said foo ba
but a news report on surveillance operation prism is realeased, so the devs decide to include reference to it? this seems a bit backwards. If there was anything suspicous surely references to prism would be removed not added , surely?
Couldn't possibly be that the IETF was moving an explicitly declared example into an implementation.
HTTP/2.0 uses the same "http" and "https" URI schemes used by
HTTP/1.1. HTTP/2.0 shares the same default port numbers: 80 for
"http" URIs and 443 for "https" URIs. As a result, implementations
processing requests for target resource URIs like
"http://example.org/foo" or "https://example.com/bar" are required to
first discover whether the upstream server (the immediate peer to
which the client wishes to establish a connection) supports HTTP/2.0.
I just wonder what nefarious implementations are coming for that data block!
Foo: bar DATA
- END_STREAM
{binary data}
HEADERS
+ END_STREAM
+ END_HEADERS
foo: bar
klongtoey ago
discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10649442
too techy for me to understand tho.
european ago
right , so originally is said foo ba
but a news report on surveillance operation prism is realeased, so the devs decide to include reference to it? this seems a bit backwards. If there was anything suspicous surely references to prism would be removed not added , surely?
pitenius ago
Couldn't possibly be that the IETF was moving an explicitly declared example into an implementation.
I just wonder what nefarious implementations are coming for that data block!
My headers read:
pitenius ago
PRI; SM