- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:43:53 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I would say it's likely premature to remove it at this stage but it is something that ought to be tracked. 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/ > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 04:44:40 UTC