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 16:09:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcRYa55pe-xAwooZYTPjkcN7h3MgCr1Gy7gWYf6EQSydA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Indeed, on re-reading the first message, that is what you're proposing.

Seems reasonable to me.
-=R


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > 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.
>
> -=R
>
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 00:09:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 00:09:56 GMT