HTTP/2 didn't create a registry because pseudo-headers are not an extensibility point on that protocol. The extensibility point that 8441 uses is SETTINGS, which negotiates a change in the operation of the protocol on a connection-by-connection basis.
Creating pseudo-headers as a new extensibility point is a bad idea; it will inevitably be misused, as the distinction between pseudo-headers and actual header fields is fuzzy in several dimensions. If people want to pursue this, I'd suggest taking it to the HTTP WG so as not to exceed the charter of this WG. Cheers, > On 17 Oct 2020, at 4:07 am, Lucas Pardue <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Martin > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 5:33 PM Martin Duke <[email protected]> wrote: > > If 4.1.1.1 is accurate, then shouldn't there be a registry for HTTP/3 > pseudoheaders? IIUC pseudoheader extensions are not possible in HTTP or > HTTP/2, so this is an H3-specific registry. > > > HTTP/2 does allow pseudo-header extension. See RFC 8441 which defines the > :protocol pseudo-header[1] to allow WebSockets over H2. > > We follow H2's example, maybe there was good reason not to have a registry or > maybe it was an oversight? > > [1] - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8441#section-5 > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
