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

Re: #537: Remove segments (consensus call)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:30:02 +1000
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <44FA8D1B-CC3C-4A49-8AA8-F18A615D6C35@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
It sounds like we've converged on getting rid of END_SEGMENT. I've marked it as editor-ready.

Regards,


On 3 Jul 2014, at 1:43 am, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Explicit acknowledgements are required for extensions which change semantics, which would include (re-)defining a flag on the DATA frame.  On the other hand, without acknowledgement, an END_SEGMENT frame could be defined with no payload and would be discarded by implementations that don’t understand it.
> 
> Sent from Windows Mail
> 
> From: Yutaka Hirano
> Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎July‎ ‎1‎, ‎2014 ‎10‎:‎32‎ ‎PM
> To: Mark Nottingham
> Cc: HTTP Working Group, Martin Thomson
> 
> It is OK for me if an "explicit acknowledgement" (including proxies) mechanism for extensions is specified in the HTTP/2 spec. Otherwise, not.
> IIUC such mechanism is not specified, right? Is there any discussion?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/537>
> 
> On 1 Jul 2014, at 4:40 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 30 June 2014 11:23, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> That's an argument for the new application negotiation token.
> >>
> >> Such a proxy should only be put in a place where no negotiation is necessary. Bailing out at any END_SEGMENT would be acceptable then.
> >
> > There's an obvious counterargument to that one...
> >
> > That's fine, but if you want to operate sans-standard, then you can
> > add your own END_SEGMENT.
> >
> > I really don't care either way here.  I'm just enumerating the
> > options, and noting that what is currently specified isn't
> > particularly well-supported.  Our responsibility is to either more
> > clearly define it, or remove it.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> It sounds like we're leaning towards removing it - can people live with that?
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 05:30:31 UTC

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