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

Re: Misc Comments on Layering layering work and sections 1-5.

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 12:00:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUGpZaAmuY0MshRCsJqtuGKjEDXtqQE+ybVmif0VriAAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Cc: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, httpbis mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 5 July 2013 11:48, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote:
>> What if instead we had two frame types: REQUEST_HEADERS and
>> RESPONSE_HEADERS?  Both would carry headers like the current HEADERS frame
>> type, but the type of headers would be clearly defined by the frame type and
>> perhaps be easier/less error prone to understand and implement.

I don't see a real advantage to this.  An endpoint knows its role.  It
can perform a lookup: initial_headers_table[myrole].

A more advanced approach might be to use a setting to describe which
initial headers table to use.  But I think that we've concluded that
this is better negotiated during the TLS handshake (that is, negotiate
a new protocol).

> I realize
> HTTP is request/response (push excluded), and we're not building a generic
> framing layer.

Push is really request/response too :)  The request is explicit too,
it just doesn't originate at the client.
Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 19:01:01 UTC

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