- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 00:29:28 +0100
- To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 12 August 2013 23:58, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote: > PUSH_PROMISE is hop-by-hop -- if you end the stream with a push promise flag > you have to tell intermediates to forward the flag on some other frame, and > that may or may not break the semantics of the layered application. This is a good point. It's especially bad if the intermediary already forwarded the last frame. Not that we should be allowing that to happen of course, since PUSH_PROMISE shouldn't be the last frame in a response... I tend to think that prohibition is the most reasonable reaction. I'm not that keen to move the END_STREAM bit off the last frame on the stream, even if it is technically the same but-we-had-to-split-it-up-a-little-so-that-it-fits frame. It spreads the frame processing logic over multiple headers in ways that will probably lead to implementation errors.
Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 23:29:55 UTC