Re: #43: SYN_REPLY

I spoke up. But my concerns aren't huge. If no one supports me, please move
forward.


On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> 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/
>
>
>
>
>