W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Some general SPDY feedback / questions

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:19:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbdJCen4n37FcPsmq3-M6kujaAoPLKyfFHCq2jSo+f6_0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
What exactly is your worry?

My general concern about it deals more with application handling of the
response than with anything else... it would be good to apply some rules...
for instance...

1. An updated :status header MUST ONLY be sent if the initial SYN_REPLY
:status header is a 1xx response code,
2. No more than one 1xx response code can be sent per response,
3. Once a non 1xx :status has been sent, it is a protocol error to send any
additional :status headers,
4. The non 1xx :status header MUST be sent before any DATA frames are sent
in the response.

With that, an application can be assured that they'll have the final actual
status code before processing any of the response data.

- James


On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote:

>
> [snip]
> Making SPDY (or HTTP/2.) suport it, however, is relatively simple.  James'
> proposal in this thread is getting close.  I'm a little worried about
> demarcation of the two sets of headers, but the rest is straightforward.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham
>> http://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 23:20:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 August 2012 23:20:44 GMT