- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:29:26 -0700
- To: Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfjx=LV1tBcKGHMWY8bBfpnk+8GpvtyBt2T7mB9NB3vqw@mail.gmail.com>
I think that, other than the overhead, HEADERS DATA(0 payload + END_SEGMENT) is the same as HEADERS(ENDSEGMENT). For messaging protocols which solely used HEADERS frames, the overhead would be unfortunate. -=R On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Erik Nygren <erik@nygren.org> wrote: > I guess the specific case for wanting END_SEGMENT in HEADERS is when the > HEADERS relate directly to the preceeding segment DATA, > > An example use-case is for chunked encoding extensions. In HTTP/2 it > seems like these might be best handled as HEADERS (perhaps with a special > name prefix or flag?) in-between segments. Some additional places I'm > aware of where this may come up: > > * I know of one system that uses HTTP/1.1 chunked extensions hop-by-hop > for end-to-end data integrity for anti-data-corruption (ie, by having a > fingerprint computed on the fly for each segment). > * ICAP uses a chunk extension of "ieof" as part of its signalling > * It looks like websockets may also have some similar use-cases for > wanting inter-segment signalling. > * Another case this might be relevant for would be the CONNECT method > where it may be desirable to be able to communicate TCP PSH or similar. > (The current CONNECT spec in the doc doesn't define this --- should it?) > > (Having some examples in one of the docs for one or more of these and how > it gets used with END_SEGMENT would be valuable to new readers.) > > For why you might want END_SEGMENT in headers: > > HEADERS (request headers) +END_HEADERS > DATA > HEADERS (for attributes related to the data) +END_SEGMENT +END_HEADERS > DATA > HEADERS (for attributes related to the data) +END_SEGMENT +END_HEADERS > HEADERS (for request footers) +END_HEADERS +END_STREAM > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On 18 April 2014 13:38, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote: >> > With an empty DATA frame, which is exactly how I’m 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. >> >> The classic uses of trailing headers is for metadata that is based on >> the entirety of the message like a digest or signature. >> >> >
Received on Friday, 18 April 2014 21:29:55 UTC