Re: SYN_REPLY

HEADERS can be used for arbitrary other key-value metadata, in
other-than-HTTP semantic layers so it more general a name than SYN_REPLY.

It is cheap either way, and I don't care either way :)
-=R


On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:36 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> It's kinda nice when reading the spec to have a symmetric
> SYN_STREAM&SYN_REPLY. Is there a reason to prefer the HEADERS name over the
> SYN_REPLY name? One main use case with HEADERS was for server push, but now
> that we're opting to use a PUSH_PROMISE frame rather than a SYN_STREAM as
> our "promise", we don't need HEADERS since we'll just send a SYN_STREAM
> when we need it.
>
> How important is supporting stuff like chunked extension headers and http
> trailers? I guess we need to support it for backwards compatibility reasons
> with HTTP/1.X? I guess if we need that, then a HEADERS name might be more
> "general", but it is somewhat hurtful for the common case where all the
> headers come back in a single reply.
>
> If no one has other comments about this, then don't worry about my
> concerns and move forward anyways. I'm more lamenting the assymetry of
> SYN_STREAM and HEADERS. I suspect it'll confuse people. Honestly, despite
> the "wastefulness" of a frame type, maybe it's better for clarity's sake to
> burn a frame type (they're cheap). I think the code cost is cheap too.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, 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
>>>
>>
>>
>