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 15:11:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdYVkjBVRnJAdsHcjHJg_dw3f7T81Br=ioDNcXUG3V0=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
or rather, it doesn't have one, but the former follows from this :)
-=R


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 23:12:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 February 2013 23:12:29 GMT