- From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:43:11 +0000
- To: Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <5d1aa8a72e974ab29dea11da8c11eb07@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Explicit acknowledgements are required for extensions which change semantics, which would include (re-)defining a flag on the DATA frame. On the other hand, without acknowledgement, an END_SEGMENT frame could be defined with no payload and would be discarded by implementations that don't understand it. Sent from Windows Mail From: Yutaka Hirano<mailto:yhirano@google.com> Sent: ?Tuesday?, ?July? ?1?, ?2014 ?10?:?32? ?PM To: Mark Nottingham<mailto:mnot@mnot.net> Cc: HTTP Working Group<mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Thomson<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com> It is OK for me if an "explicit acknowledgement" (including proxies) mechanism for extensions is specified in the HTTP/2 spec. Otherwise, not. IIUC such mechanism is not specified, right? Is there any discussion? Thanks, On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net<mailto:mnot@mnot.net>> wrote: <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/537> On 1 Jul 2014, at 4:40 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote: > On 30 June 2014 11:23, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com<mailto:potswa@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> That's an argument for the new application negotiation token. >> >> Such a proxy should only be put in a place where no negotiation is necessary. Bailing out at any END_SEGMENT would be acceptable then. > > There's an obvious counterargument to that one... > > That's fine, but if you want to operate sans-standard, then you can > add your own END_SEGMENT. > > I really don't care either way here. I'm just enumerating the > options, and noting that what is currently specified isn't > particularly well-supported. Our responsibility is to either more > clearly define it, or remove it. Agreed. It sounds like we're leaning towards removing it - can people live with that? -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 15:43:48 UTC