W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

RE: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:03:33 +0000
To: <jpinner@twitter.com>
CC: <mnot@mnot.net>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC201187EDC8D@SEM002PD.sg.iaea.org>
Hi Jeff-

On Friday,11 July 2014 14:18, jpinner@twitter.com wrote:
>> why [do] we still need CONTINUATION [if] we remove the reference set from HPACK.
>
> CONTINUATION frames simplify the processing of multiple header blocks since
> the HEADERS / PUSH_PROMISE frames contain other fields that CONTINUATION
> cannot have. As long as HEADERS contains a priority field and PUSH_PROMISE a
> promised stream ID, CONTINUATION frames make error handling simpler.

Thanks.  Now your eariler proposal make more sense (to me), particularly the reason for adding SYN_STREAM...

> PUSH_PROMISE 1*HEADERS SYN_STREAM 1*HEADERS 0*DATA [DATA 0*HEADERS]

Presumably a non-pushed request would look like this...?

SYN_STREAM 1*HEADERS 0*DATA [DATA 0*HEADERS]

I'm with Greg, though, what is the reason for needing a distinction between HEADERS and DATA frames?  The same thing could easily be accomplished with just DATA frames logically divided into a http request of "headers data [trailers]" just by the END_SEGMENT flag.

-keith

This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 13:04:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC