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

Re: #43: SYN_REPLY

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:43:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbe6TTchFP+1K1mmGZTMPVVZprvb0P3gZM4+Qfg48HXFfg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I would say it's likely premature to remove it at this stage but it is
something that ought to be tracked.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 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 04:44:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 February 2013 04:44:42 GMT