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: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 10:20:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWjYgxbcnEo5SiU_0dN8uSt6SNpjzY0BVvooeHo18T7ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 26 February 2013 20:16, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Taking the priority out of SYN_STREAM would only bloat things on the wire,
> since the client will always want to state priority for a new stream. I
> don't support removing priority from SYN_STREAM.

What if HEADERS contained priority?  Is your objection to removing
priority from SYN_STREAM, or removing priority from the first frame in
the stream.

Here's a more concrete proposal, albeit slightly radical.

Remove SYN_STREAM and SYN_REPLY.
Have stream-level flags that appear in ALL messages.
 1. last frame in stream (the existing FIN bit)
 2. stream priority (a new one)
The 'stream priority' flag indicates that the first 4 bytes of the
frame payload includes a priority.  This should (or SHOULD) be set on
the first frame of any stream.

Then a typical stream looks like:
 - a HEADERS frame with the 'stream priority' flag set, plus a priority
 - a bunch of data frames
 - maybe some other frames
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 18:21:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2013 18:21:25 GMT