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: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:02:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdxzgA019iez-HkJyS6cxM9EZ_HdsdmaK4mv6oTDzUSVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I think that the opcode approach is easier (I have a single branch instead
of nested branches), but don't think it is a big deal either way.


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)

> 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 20:02:38 UTC

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