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

RE: Stateless Multiplexable Continuations #541

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 22:31:49 +0000
To: <jason.greene@redhat.com>, <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC201186FAB2E@sem002pd>
On 26 June 2014 19:40, jason.greene@redhat.com wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2014, at 11:49 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> One thing that came up in a side conversation in NYC was the possibility of only HPACKing the HEADERS frame; subsequent CONTINUATION frames would be uncompressed (so they don't affect state, and could be flow controlled).
> Since it seems likely that the jumbo frames are going to be sidelined to an extension,
> I really think this proposal needs a second look. It has a lot of really nice benefits including:
> 1. Discouraging CONTINUATIONS (slightly harder to create and they take more space)

Why would you still need CONTINUATION frames?  Can't you just use regular HEADERS frames without compression?

> 2. Better multiplexing (other streams are not penalized by a “rude” stream)
> 3. Ability to RST_STREAM vs GOAWAY + close
> 4. Complexity of processing a standalone HEADERS frame (the desired behavior) is reduced
> 5. All of the benefits of the existing design are preserved, but with a cleaner solution
This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 22:36:14 UTC

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