Re: CONTINUATION frame and continuation flag

Keep the binary value for the flags the same ... either all last/end=1 or
all more/continued=1. I prefer the former value, but not very strongly.

On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> Currently in draft -04 we have:
> 
> In "HEADERS" frame:
> 
>   END_HEADERS (0x4) flag
> 
> In "PUSH_PROMISE" frame:
> 
>   END_PUSH_PROMISE (0x1) flag
> 
> 
> I am updating the document to introduce a new CONTINUATION frame as per issue
> 183. I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1) do people want to keep using END_HEADERS/END_PUSH_PROMISE flags or should I
> replace them with "more headers to follow" flag?
> (Another option is to remove the flags altogether and just derive this
> information from presence of CONTINUATION frames. Speak up if you prefer this
> option.)
> 
> 2) If the answer to 1) is "more headers" flag, can I reorder existing flags on
> HEADERS/PUSH_PROMISE so that the new flag
> has the same value for both frames (and the new CONTINUATION frame)?
> 
> Comments?
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 13:34:17 UTC