Re: YAC Proposal

This sounds like a non-starter, to me. As mentioned in the other thread, I
prefer either the status quo, or failing that a stateless CONTINUATION.
This seems worse to me than either of those options. With a stateless
CONTINUATION, in the rare occasions when I'll encounter a compressed header
block > 16k, I can roll back just one step in my HPACK compression, and
then continue on sending an uncompressed form of the headers. With
CONTINUATION as an extension, when the other side doesn't advertise
support, I would either have to either roll back the entire HPACK state
that I changed when trying to compress the headers and generate a
RST_STREAM (likely synthesizing an 413 or some other error in the process
for my own side), or I'd have to send a GOAWAY, and dial back. Neither of
those options is in any way more appealing than stateless CONTINUATION
(which I'm still not entirely sold on to begin with!)

--
Peace,
  -Nick


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:51 PM, <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:

> I'd like to propose yet another option to Mark's list of options for
> dealing with the "CONTINUATION issue".
>
> Make it an extension.
>
> In NYC several people mentioned that if we add extensibility, we should
> have an extension(s) right from the start that are used.  CONTINUATION IMO
> is a good option for an extension.
>
> Here is the CONTINUATION extension draft:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-johndoe-http2-large-header-blocks-00.txt
>
> Here is the pull request to remove CONTINUATION from the core h2 draft:
> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/547
>
> -keith
>
> 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.
>
>