W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013


From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:15:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWSqRYAPz3mb1gS3_+O60okZK5NTnzHQC2-NBizsYZgbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 25 February 2013 20:42, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> Fully agreed it's more general. I think that unless we go all the way with
> ditching SYN_STREAM too (which I disagree with), then I think it's a net
> loss (primarily due to more difficulty in grokking the spec) to save a frame
> type value and combine SYN_REPLY and HEADERS into one.

I'm interested in what you feel SYN_STREAM provides that you can't get

I don't care either way about whether the priority is in the message
or not.  So, in the interests of saving those few bytes, that's a
feature that could be retained (or even moved to HEADERS).

The only other thing is the UNIDIRECTIONAL flag.  This flag is
currently redundant: all streams sent by the client are bidirectional,
and all streams from the server are unidirectional without exception.

As I said in another mail, I'm not sure that SYN_STREAM/SYN_REPLY
actually help with understanding the spec.  On the contrary, I think
that they lead to false impressions about how streams start.  They
imply negotiation, which is far from the case.
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 00:16:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:08 UTC