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


From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:07:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNd_3eqoOgOgeXe629dYSaiEosh1m5AOaO_MyKGK=BQmpw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> > SYN_REPLY doesn't have one, because it doesn't need to declare priority--
> > the SYN_STREAM already did that, and it is almost always a waste to
> include
> > a priority field in SYN_REPLY.
> Agree.  So what does SYN_REPLY actually do then?
> It contains a HEADERS block and little else. If you're arguing to elide
SYN_REPLY given HEADERS, then sure, I can see that-- the frame fields are
the same now that we've removed the 'in-reply-to' field.

Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 00:07:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:10 UTC