Re: SYN_REPLY

Indeed, on re-reading the first message, that is what you're proposing.

Seems reasonable to me.
-=R


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > SYN_REPLY doesn't have one, because it doesn't need to declare priority--
>> > the SYN_STREAM already did that, and it is almost always a waste to
>> include
>> > a priority field in SYN_REPLY.
>>
>> Agree.  So what does SYN_REPLY actually do then?
>>
>> It contains a HEADERS block and little else. If you're arguing to elide
> SYN_REPLY given HEADERS, then sure, I can see that-- the frame fields are
> the same now that we've removed the 'in-reply-to' field.
>
> -=R
>