OK, created as: https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/43 and marked for incorporation by editors; if someone wants to keep SYN_REPLY, pleas say so now. On 22/02/2013, at 11:09 AM, 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 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 00:15:42 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 February 2013 00:15:45 GMT