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

Re: END_SEGMENT and headers

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 22:56:32 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNA8ADvxuO-03t6KbTvNn2w-6xzKJWM92+vMf6+r8=uEyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 17 April 2014 09:46, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> The draft states both that frames can not be coalesced across a segment
> boundary, but also that segment boundaries must be preserved.
>
> You are correct that for a HEADERS frame w/ the END_SEGMENT flag set,
> there is no way a server could coalesce frames because the next frames must
> be CONTINUATION frames until the END_HEADERS flag is received, so in this
> case, END_SEGMENT and END_HEADERS are equivalent.
>
>
​I've just come up against this issue in my implementation. Is it a
protocol ​error to receive a HEADERS with END_SEGMENT set, but END_HEADERS
cleared?

And since the CONTINUATION frame doesn't even have an END_SEGMENT flag, if
we need to send big headers at the end of a segment do we have to do
something like: HEADERS+CONTINUATION(END_HEADERS),
HEADERS(END_HEADERS+END_SEGMENT)?

Blech.

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Monday, 21 April 2014 12:57:02 UTC

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