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

Re: SYN_REPLY

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:11:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdkoFXwWoxGAVGh1Sy6+3EDrzOo-hgP6=9+0PnYaxzXbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
The SYN_REPLY doesn't need a priority field.
-=R


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> I'm looking at the HTTP/2.0 streaming layer and it's not clear to me
> what value SYN_REPLY adds.
>
> SYN_STREAM establishes priority for a stream (and that's all!).
> SYN_REPLY doesn't have the power of refusal, that's what RST_STREAM is
> for.
>
> There's no need to have a special declaration that a stream is
> starting, the first message on a stream should be a clear enough
> indication of that.
>
> It does carry headers, but HEADERS does a bang-up job of that.  In all
> other respects, SYN_REPLY and HEADERS are identical.
>
> Do we even need the SYN_REPLY frame type?
>
>
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 23:11:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 February 2013 23:11:55 GMT