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

Re: SYN_REPLY

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:31:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXvo1X6m57AzThe-AC9fah7BZ+_8-XkD8xqe7fK26HxkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
:)

SYN_STREAM would be next on the list of targets.  Removing that would
require a PRIORITIZE frame and (maybe) a setting to establish a
default stream priority.  The downside is that it would add 4 bytes to
streams where a non-default priority was desired.  Saving 4 bytes on
the default priority might not be a good enough trade-off.

For my use cases, I don't care about prioritization for most requests,
so that would be a good trade-off.  I'm sure that browsers are more
likely to have a highly variable priority for resources, so it might
be a bad trade-off.  That is, if you cared more about the bits than
the ability to remove another whole frame type.

On 21 February 2013 16:09, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 00:32:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 00:32:02 GMT