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

Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:24:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_h8eaVg3eApt7EaXQ6NoHP8T4sGchK4eyqraszPCbHLBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com>, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>, "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "C.Brunhuber@iaea.org" <C.Brunhuber@iaea.org>
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 19 June 2014 00:51, Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com> wrote:
> > I don't want to require all intermediaries to understand WS over HTTP/2.
>
> If this is the requirement, then you'll need to retain END_SEGMENT.
>
> I'm not convinced that this is right though.  I'd rather have an
> explicit acknowledgement that my protocol is understood by the
> entities that are participating in it.
>
> Imagine what would happen if an intermediary decided to cache the
> response to your websocket request...
>

More specifically, the requirement should be that "transparent
intermediaries" not need to understand WS (whether those be captive
portals, load balancers, HTTP routers, etc). And since these proxy devices
may reframe the data stream based on things like window sizes on the
proxied connections, they must at least understand the flag and how to
behave when it comes to reframing.
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2014 17:24:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC