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

Re: Framing and control-frame continuations

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 23:32:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeidckUdv7rO-FhYmx-ypY9sd-e0Yn9qTwcOyv5cttg_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Not in cases where one side of a flow often closes after one control frame,
e.g. most HTTP GETs
-=R


On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:47:08 +0100, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>
>> The Frame format:
>>
>>          0                   1
>>          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
>>         +-+-+-----------+-------------**--+
>>         |F|C|  type     |               |
>>         +-+-+-----------+               +
>>         |        Frame Length (24)      |
>>         +-----------------------------**--+
>>         |       opaque ID (16)          |
>>         +-----------------------------**--+
>>         |     Frame Data (16...N)       |
>>         +-----------------------------**--+
>>
>>
> Since the flow only ends once, isn't an end-of-flow control type more
> efficient use of bits than a flag?
>
> /Martin Nilsson
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 07:33:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 February 2013 07:33:19 GMT