W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Design Issue: Separate HEADERS and PRIORITY Frames, Eliminate HEADERS+PRIORITY

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 12:43:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYh5ghPLBwHpezZ-dq7TjNXM2t+5oFppRaJ7eJ_M_Zd3BA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I have feelings about this bike shed color, but I don't care enough to
argue why mine is the best color ever. I am satisfied that there is a way
to convey priority within the same frame as the headers.


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> At the time Roberto made the argument that the number of flags (8) was
> more sparse than the number of frame types (256), but IIRC this was based
> on the flags applying to all Control frames. At this point we have (at
> least implicitly) decided that flags are frame-type specific (see PONG
> flag), so I don't believe the argument is valid any more.
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> I remember having almost this exact discussion in Tokyo.  The only
>> point that didn't come up this time was an argument Roberto made,
>> namely: "A frame type is cheaper (fewer bits) than a flag."
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 19:44:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC