Re: END_SEGMENT and headers

Seems like a reasonable reduction/improvement to me.
-=R


On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:54 PM, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:

> The END_SEGMENT flag is defined for HEADERS frames, but it seems to be
> meaningless. A literal reading of the draft seems to say that such a frame
> cannot be coalesced with subsequent CONTINUATION frames, but those frames
> do not also have the same (useless) segmentation capability.
>
> Why not let END_SEGMENT and END_HEADERS be the same bit? Then headers be
> treated as the first segment of any stream, by some simplistic
> intermediaries. It also reclaims a flag bit, as they are running into short
> supply.
>
> Also, is END_SEGMENT required when END_STREAM is set? It seems it should
> be, for the sake of protocol regularity.
>
>
>