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

Re: Miscellaneous Comments on -14

From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:23:27 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D024F6EA.3981D%Robby.Simpson@GE.com>
On 8/13/14, 1:29 PM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:


>I think that I got these.
>
>On 4 August 2014 12:34, Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)
><robby.simpson@ge.com> wrote:
>> Various ASCII art header figures show fields aligned on byte and word
>> boundaries (e.g., "DATA Frame Payload", "HEADERS Frame Payload",
>>"Setting
>> Format", "PUSH_PROMISE Payload Format").  The text doesn't mention this
>>at
>> all.  Is byte and word alignment intended?
>
>Byte, yes.  Word, no.

So I think I've confused the issue by talking about words.  What I really
mean is that the ASCII art shows fields starting at 32-bit boundaries when
they do not.  For example (from the latest Editors' copy):

 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                 Length (24)                   |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+
|   Type (8)    |   Flags (8)   |
+-+-+-----------+---------------+-------------------------------+
|R|                 Stream Identifier (31)                      |
+=+=============================================================+
|                   Frame Payload (0...)                      ...
+---------------------------------------------------------------+


This makes it look like "Type" begins at bit 32.  Whereas I would think
the specification states something like:

 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                 Length (24)                   |    Type (8)   |
+---------------+-+-----------------------------+---------------+
|   Flags (8)   |R|                 Stream Identifier (31)
+---------------+-+-------------+===============================+
                                | Frame Payload (0...)        ...
+-------------------------------+===============================+


If you agree, let me know and I can check out an editors' copy and take a
stab at them.

>>9.2 states "Implementations of HTTP/2 MUST support TLS 1.2 [TLS12] for
>> HTTP/2 over TLS." then "An implementation of HTTP/2 over TLS MUST use
>>TLS
>> 1.2 or higher with the restrictions on feature set and cipher suite
>> described in this section." So which is it?  == 1.2 or >= 1.2
>
>It's >= 1.2.  Supporting 1.2 is a natural prerequisite of all TLS
>versions above 1.2.

I'm not convinced - to me there is a difference between "MUST support 1.2"
vs. "MUST use 1.2 or higher".
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2014 19:23:53 UTC

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