- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:13:19 +1100
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
OK, created as: https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/43 and marked for incorporation by editors; if someone wants to keep SYN_REPLY, pleas say so now. On 22/02/2013, at 11:09 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 00:15:42 UTC