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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:30:35 -0500
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-Id: <186E03DB-5FE7-412F-A7F0-85E834DE7FF9@redhat.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>

On Jun 25, 2014, at 3:00 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25 June 2014 12:30, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> I don't think that's the case at all. un-acked extensions are limited that
>> way because you can't change the semantics of the protocol.. but once you
>> ack something you can do anything you like - including changing framing to
>> look like websockets via use one of the R bits (as an example). Go bootstrap
>> h3 that way if you feel so inclined to write an extension like that.
>> 
>> but maybe I have that wrong -(our extension text is brand new afterall) and
>> extensions are meant to preclude such hackery which seems odd - given they
>> are essentially a hackery escape hatch that already acknowledges the ability
>> to change semantics of existing elements. If that's true there is always the
>> alpn method of proving this can work - because I really don't think it can
>> work and leave h2 responsive.
> 
> You have it right.  Once you get mutual agreement to use an extension,
> that extension only needs to worry about the synchronization point at
> which you change anything and everything.  Here's a basic strawman:
> 
> New setting X, 0 = off (initial), 1 = on.  Once a setting has been set
> to "on" on both sides and been acknowledged, you can enable the use of
> the reserved bits, exactly as PHK has described.  If a peer uses the
> extension prior to both acknowledging the settings and sending their
> own setting enabling the setting, you are entitled to treat that as an
> error.

That wasn’t clear to me in the text, thank you for clarifying the intention.

--
Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 20:31:50 UTC

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