- From: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:02:01 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, Ilya Grigorik <ilya@igvita.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Personally, I'm not thrilled with how the server session header is conflated > with a SETTINGS frame... if we're going to require that the server send a > SETTINGS frame first (which is fine), let's just come out and say that, rather > than making it a side effect of requiring a (largely fictional) server session > header. The spec already says that in section 3.8.4 that a SETTINGS frame MUST be the first frame sent by either party in a new session. So that part is fine. If we wish to say that a server has no session header, that would be fine. As for " As proposed by Gabriel, SETTINGS (or equivalent) would/could be carried in the headers in the UPGRADE request." For the record, I did not say that in the Upgrade scenario the client session header is sent in HTTP/1.1 along with the Upgrade request. My understanding is that the Upgrade request goes without the client session header. As we have discussed in Orlando, we could add some HTTP/1.1 headers to address the known state by conveying *some* of the settings (only those absolutely necessary to achieve known initial state). But that's a separate proposal/discussion from this thread. At any rate, the server sends back the 101, and begins its HTTP/2.0 traffic by sending its SETTINGS frame and its response frames, and the client upon receiving the 101, and only then, begins sending HTTP/2.0 traffic starting with its client session header (which includes the magic sequence and the client SETTINGS frame).
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 17:04:24 UTC