- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:48:48 -0700
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1 ... we especially do not need END_MESSAGE in the spec right now.. at least for this initial implementation draft. We ought to pick this one up a bit later once we get into the discussion about extensions. On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 June 2013 13:42, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: >> END_MESSAGE indicates the end of a message, which could be metadata only, or >> it could be metadata+data. > > The term "message" has not been defined. I believe that is the > problem here. (We actually removed that word from the draft for that > precise reason). > > I never imagined a definition of message that resembled that, since > HTTP message =~ all the on-stream frames. I know that you have > something in mind for websockets, but I'm not sure that I like the > reuse of HEADERS for the purpose of providing WS message/frame > headers, but that's a whole new discussion. > > I understand what you are doing now. I don't think that we should add > the flag until we can properly explain what it means. >
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 23:49:35 UTC