- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:21:48 -0700
- To: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
- Cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcuD0ZFxOv1mpWADC8AsbgOKSADXF1Wj1mS6gDGch8s3w@mail.gmail.com>
One cannot remove continuation without addressing backwards compatibility with HTTP/1.1 deployments sending large headers. The status quo, or a variation which improves the state machine around continuation (e.g. by moving the flags to the last frame of the headers block) makes the most sense to me -=R On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org> wrote: > 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. >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 00:22:15 UTC