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

Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:59:32 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NHUbeYaFR8bu=tHa0to73vAsiV+x1EdWsQ3-4gJiNdbOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 23 August 2014 10:19, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is now doubly so:
>
> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/commit/ec57ba8fbc8d20d2ccae799a6a581666dce3d2f4
>

Oh - I thought we were still favouring allowing arbitrary placement of
extension frames.   If we don't allow them to be within header blocks, then
we can stick with the simpler state machine, with the cost that extensions
must be HTTP semantic away... but I think they pretty much have to be
anyway (without radical change).

I'm ok with that clarification.

cheers





-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Saturday, 23 August 2014 03:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC