W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2017

Re: DRAFT: more details for HTTPtre

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 05:04:40 +1300
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <472a2288-dcf7-3313-e49e-b96bbdc19fd0@treenet.co.nz>
On 30/11/17 23:12, Lucas Pardue wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> The connection coalescing case is interesting as it's not currently described in HTTP/QUIC. Presumably by oversight or time constraint rather than intent. (We've got a ticket open tracking that one.)
> Changing track, I've just seen your SNI I-D
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bishop-httpbis-sni-altsvc-00
> References to Frames don't state a specific mapping (HTTP/2 or HTTP/QUIC). Reading between the lines this seems intentional, which got me thinking that also Frames could be described as a new HTTP semantic for binary-capable wire formats.

The HTTP/1 message format is also conceptually interpreted as one or 
more Frames consisting of request-line, status-line, mime, and payload 
chunks. Which have to be sent in a specific order when sent. The mime 
and payload being optional depending on details in the first line.

RFC 7230 even starts describing the details that delimit those areas (in 
particular the payload) in terms of "framing".

Received on Thursday, 30 November 2017 16:05:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 30 November 2017 16:05:25 UTC