Re: Design Issue: HEADERS+PRIORITY "MUST be used" for each stream that is created??

On 26 April 2013 13:43, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I disagree on that point and say that I think it's much safer
> if we require that streams be initiated with only headers-bearing
> frames.
>
> Imagine, for instance, that a sender sends along a DATA frame with a
> new, previously unused stream identifier. Without an associated
> headers frame I have absolutely no context with which to determine
> what I need to do with that DATA frame. Likewise if I receive an
> RST_STREAM that references a previously unused stream identifier. If
> there's absolutely nothing that I can reliably do with it, or not
> reliable way that I can interpret it without additional context, then
> we should not allow it.

I believe that this is exactly the scenario that the websockets
binding will take advantage of.  (Maybe there is some need to expose
some header information there, but that's a case that needs to be made
for that specific use of the framing layer.)

Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 20:49:58 UTC