- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:48:22 +1000
- To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: "Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH)" <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, "'ietf-http-wg@w3.org'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Looking at the minutes from Tokyo, this was originally for control vs. data (as in SPDY). I think there's been some discussion about discarding the control bit; OTOH, if people are going to define extension frames, it'd be nice for intermediaries to know whether they count against flow control without having to understand their semantics... Cheers, On 13/04/2013, at 3:43 PM, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: > > future proofing? E.g. if we need to move to another format or size for stream ID? > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH)" <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> > To: "'ietf-http-wg@w3.org'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> > Sent: 13/04/2013 12:48:46 p.m. > Subject: 3.3.1 Frame Header: Purpose of 1-bit reserved field? >> 3.3.1. Frame Header >> >> |R| Stream Identifier (31) | >> >> >> R: A reserved 1-bit field. The semantics of this bit are not defined. >> >> I was curious about the purpose for the 1-bit reserved field. Can it be deleted and the Stream Identifier increased to 32 bits? >> >> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/67 >> >> >> Brian Raymor >> Senior Program Manager >> Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. >> A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation >> >> >> > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 13 April 2013 06:49:11 UTC