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

Re: Framing and control-frame continuations

From: Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 08:49:09 +0000
To: "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com>, "Martin Nilsson" <nilsson@opera.com>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <eme680c3ae-91f1-4160-a077-0a24e5b25a8e@bombed>


------ Original Message ------
From: "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: "Martin Nilsson" <nilsson@opera.com>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 8/02/2013 8:32:47 p.m.
Subject: Re: Framing and control-frame continuations
>Not in cases where one side of a flow often closes after one control 
>frame, e.g. most HTTP GETs
>-=R
IME most GETS are followed by another GET.  HTTP/1.1 anyway.

Adrien

>
>
>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 08:50:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 February 2013 08:50:13 GMT