W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Design Issue: Separate HEADERS and PRIORITY Frames, Eliminate HEADERS+PRIORITY

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 18:25:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_hZBQ80XX0UxLRB2v3=bGYtbOBJY7GFGdiqO5Y9+w1JPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
My preference for flag over opcode has to do with "one frame to open
streams" while I acknowledge the extra branch in the frame decoder --
though i think it might remove a branch in the session management code :)

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that the opcode approach is easier (I have a single branch instead
> of nested branches), but don't think it is a big deal either way.
> -=R
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <
> willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
>> I have feelings about this bike shed color, but I don't care enough to
>> argue why mine is the best color ever. I am satisfied that there is a way
>> to convey priority within the same frame as the headers.
>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>wrote:
>>> At the time Roberto made the argument that the number of flags (8) was
>>> more sparse than the number of frame types (256), but IIRC this was based
>>> on the flags applying to all Control frames. At this point we have (at
>>> least implicitly) decided that flags are frame-type specific (see PONG
>>> flag), so I don't believe the argument is valid any more.
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Martin Thomson <
>>> martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I remember having almost this exact discussion in Tokyo.  The only
>>>> point that didn't come up this time was an argument Roberto made,
>>>> namely: "A frame type is cheaper (fewer bits) than a flag."
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2013 01:25:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:11 UTC