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

Re: multipart 206 responses in HTTP/2.0

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 16:11:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfS6ArwuazDap=g0ShrqCySMWkpWcbDRLih9+URaF0_Hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I have a draft proposal for this I'm holding on to that uses extension
frames to replace multipart mime. I am holding off publishing it until the
basic lower level protocol work is completed.
On Oct 4, 2013 3:50 PM, "Osama Mazahir" <OSAMAM@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  Have we thought about how we are supposed to send a 206 multipart
> response in HTTP/2.0?****
>
> ** **
>
> Section 8.1 of draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-06 states:****
>
> ** **
>
>    Other frames MAY be interspersed with these frames, but those frames***
> *
>
>    do not carry HTTP semantics.  In particular, HEADERS frames (and any***
> *
>
>    CONTINUATION frames that follow) other than the first and optional****
>
>    last frames in this sequence do not carry HTTP semantics.****
>
> ** **
>
>    Trailing header fields are carried in a header block that also****
>
>    terminates the stream.  That is, a sequence starting with a HEADERS****
>
>    frame, followed by zero or more CONTINUATION frames, that carries an***
> *
>
>    END_STREAM flag on the last frame.  Header blocks after the first****
>
>    that do not terminate the stream are not part of an HTTP request or****
>
>    response.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 23:11:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC