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

Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)

From: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:53:19 -0700
Message-ID: <53A3319F.3090308@fb.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
CC: Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.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 06/19/2014 10:26 AM, Jeff Pinner wrote:
>
>
>     Both options require changes. Even if the intermediary doesn't
>     understand WS, normal day-to-day HTTP/1.1 APIs would have to
>     change to accommodate segments. In my mind, that is nearly the
>     same as requiring the proxy to understand WS.
>
>
> The requirements as written were done so that there is no to change 
> normal day-to-day HTTP/1.1 APIs. It is a requirement on the framing 
> layer, not the HTTP message layer.
>
> This is in the same sense as HTTP/1.1 APIs do not need to be changed 
> to understand PING or SETTINGS.

Not quite -- since PING and SETTINGS are hop-to-hop they don't need to 
be exposed above the framing layer. Segments are end-to-end, so they 
have to be exposed above the framing layer (ie the HTTP message layer).
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2014 18:53:57 UTC

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