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

#43: SYN_REPLY

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:13:19 +1100
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AE4889E4-9965-4C31-BB29-6BAD41045B5A@mnot.net>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
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