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 11:17:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW7n+c17mOVKNya5jVxW5A=8HPb_Ez=_JDQB8eWiNfdsQ@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>
If you like.  This hasn't addressed the unidirectional piece though.

On 27 February 2013 11:16, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shall I take that as an agreement? :)
> -=R
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Opcode or flags, it matters not.  It depends on where you want to
>> spend your bit (or part thereof).
>>
>> On 27 February 2013 10:45, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The we're wasting bytes on responses. Bleh. Worse, now we can't simply
>> > examine the length field to figure out what to do. Double-eww.
>> > In any case, spending a bit in the flags, is far more costly than
>> > spending
>> > the fractional bit out of the opcode space, which is what is done today!
>> >
>> > Something I could go with, given the previous change would be to also
>> > change
>> > the name of SYN_STREAM to HEADERS_WITH_PRIO
>> > and leave HEADERS as it is.
>> >
>> > How does that sound?
>> >
>> >
>> > -=R
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Martin Thomson
>> > <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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 19:18:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 February 2013 19:18:21 GMT