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

Re: END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM redundant

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 18:14:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfqU4Qud1p0phk4h24zVG+PA+2ixz_gqFP2XipdTG25UQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
The implementation and API on top of that allows or disallows the
expression of such things to the application.
It is the duty of the protocol to make it possible to express these things,
not to mandate how it is used, unless it is necessary for interop.

The spec defines the minimum for interop: each bit has its own meaning.
Interpretation is up to the application.
-=R


On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 5:58 PM, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is similar to my earlier question about duplicate segment codings.
> The spec needs to specify which is significant (observable by the
> application): the flag bits, or the segmentation.
>
> On 2014–04–20, at 6:23 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Arguably these are not redundant, since the message may not have been
> completed when the stream was terminated.
> -=R
> On Apr 19, 2014 8:08 AM, "Adrian Cole" <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, all.
>>
>> The combination of END_SEGMENT and END_STREAM seem redundant to me.
>> It seems like you wouldn't need to support both flags at the same
>> time, as ending a stream surely ends the segment.  Is it worthwhile
>> calling this out?
>>
>> -A
>>
>>
>
Received on Sunday, 20 April 2014 01:14:49 UTC

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