------ Original Message ------ From: "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com> To: "Martin Nilsson" <nilsson@opera.com> Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Sent: 8/02/2013 8:32:47 p.m. Subject: Re: Framing and control-frame continuations >Not in cases where one side of a flow often closes after one control >frame, e.g. most HTTP GETs >-=R IME most GETS are followed by another GET. HTTP/1.1 anyway. Adrien > > >On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com> >wrote: >>On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:47:08 +0100, Amos Jeffries >><squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> >>>The Frame format: >>> >>> 0 1 >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 >>> +-+-+-----------+---------------+ >>> |F|C| type | | >>> +-+-+-----------+ + >>> | Frame Length (24) | >>> +-------------------------------+ >>> | opaque ID (16) | >>> +-------------------------------+ >>> | Frame Data (16...N) | >>> +-------------------------------+ >>> >> >>Since the flow only ends once, isn't an end-of-flow control type more >>efficient use of bits than a flag? >> >>/Martin Nilsson >> >
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 08:50:11 UTC