Re: SYN_REPLY

• From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
• Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:25:30 +1300
• To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
• Message-ID: <512ECE2A.1050406@treenet.co.nz>

On 28/02/2013 10:12 a.m., Hasan Khalil wrote:
> It sounds like we're roughly back to keeping SYN_STREAM (which is 
> basically HEADERS with a priority) and ditching SYN_REPLY for HEADERS.
>
> I'm on board with this.
>

+1. Same here for those changes.

> -Hasan
>
> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 2:58 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:
>
>> I'm fine with this but there are details that need to be covered in 
>> the spec. When a stream starts, the client MUST use the 
>> HEADERS+PRIORITY frame. Otherwise, we need to spec out what happens 
>> when you have some streams with unspecified priority and some streams 
>> with specified priority. I'd rather just mandate we always include 
>> the priority. For clients which don't care about priority, always 
>> pick the same arbitrary value.
>>
>> PS: I raised a minor point earlier about possibly allowing 
>> bidirectional server initiated streams. I don't feel strongly about 
>> it, and if an actual use case arises, I'm happy to re-raise later.

I disagree on the need for server-initiated streams, Push can work fine 
without turning HTTP semantics into BEEP semantics. But that is a side 
issue I think we will discuss later or elsewhere.

Amos

Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 03:26:01 UTC