- From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
- Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 23:28:05 -0700
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAA4WUYj7AgoBHRovKW098djqs4dO_HYsSqiBFrY3qDOvbMOYzw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: > On 31 August 2013 18:18, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > > I suck at editorial stuff so I expect people to object to my wording, but > > here's some proposed text (I'd be happy to put together a pull request > too)? > > Does this clarify whatever you find muddy? > > This is exactly the sort of response I wanted to encourage. The only > problem I see with your proposed text is that it says nothing about > what forms the tunnel and its characteristics. Basically, I think > that a full edit for this needs to take a good hard look at 2817. > This is a good start, but there's a bit more required. > Yeah, I didn't really know how to spec that. Basically, the DATA frames form the bidirectional tunnel. I'm not quite sure what else to say here, but I have difficulty because my natural thought process matches what we did in SPDY, so I don't know how to discuss this in a way that would clear up any other possible tunnel characteristics. Do you have any proposed text here? > > Note that changing what colon-headers are required, especially > prohibiting :scheme is going to be a little bit of a surprise to some. > (And it will compress less well.) Can we just say that its value is > ignored instead? > I just picked what we did in SPDY, which we didn't spend too much thinking about since it works. I don't think I care too much about this particular bike shed, so if we want to ignore :scheme, I'd tolerate that. Not excited about ignoring stuff, but if that's what others would prefer, I'd accept that. > Other issues: this tunneling will limit the size of TLS frames if the > intent is to have them in a single HTTP/2.0 frame. That might need > some mention. > I'm not sure if this needs any mentioning...I mean, the same applies to TLS over TCP, right? If anything, I'd put it in the TLS spec that having a TLS record span multiple frames in the underlying transport can incur delays in processing a TLS record.
Received on Sunday, 1 September 2013 06:28:33 UTC