W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: END_SEGMENT and headers, #2

From: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 04:38:47 +0800
Message-Id: <CB7E1AD4-43EA-46AC-B20D-617822083347@gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

On 20140419, at 4:23 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 18 April 2014 13:12, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not to beat a dead horse, but I think that bit should go. Data frames alone provide exactly enough END_SEGMENT flags.
> 
> Roberto described why he wanted it: to be able to finish a segment
> with a HEADERS frame.  I don't see how you can address that need
> without the bit.


With an empty DATA frame, which is exactly how Im doing my interface. But it really sounds like a corner case. Metadata is much more likely to occur at the beginning of a new message than later, or especially the end.

I can see translating HTTP-like transactions to segments, and you would END_SEGMENT after each response. But sending an empty data frame for an empty response body is only 8 bytes. In the old currency that only buys you the string "HTTP/1.1 :v) .


Received on Friday, 18 April 2014 20:39:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC