- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:32:12 -0700
- To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcsqhgOPofUcr0qD_8f77gcMAX3HqaeH7TgDXAB+oH5pA@mail.gmail.com>
Are you mixing up the HTTP on HTTP2 usecase with the framing part of HTTP2? -=R On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:30 PM, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote: > You mean all on the same stream? No, that is not allowed, because the > headers (and CONTINUATIONs) must be an uninterrupted sequence of frames. > There must be exactly one HEADERS frame per stream because it changes the > stream’s state. > > Before the headers are complete, the server cannot dispatch the stream to > an application, so there is no application there to receive the metadata… > > > On 2014–04–17, at 7:21 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > > A message might be comprised of HEADERS DATA(200bytes) > HEADERS+CONTINUATION DATA(20bytes) HEADERS. > > Your suggestion of making END_HEADERS mean END_SEGMENT would disallow > expression of such a message. > -=R > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What? This proposal does not disturb segmentation. Metadata may appear in >> the middle of a message, but not in the middle of the headers! >> >> On 2014–04–17, at 5:45 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I misread that! >> > >> > I withdraw that this is a good improvement, since there are protocols >> that may want to have metadata in the middle of a message. >> > >> > -=R >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 23:32:39 UTC