Re: YAC Proposal

Is the extension guaranteed to be supported everywhere?
If not, then HTTP2 doesn't offer HTTP1's semantics.
-=R


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
wrote:

> Compatibility isn’t really affected here. You simply use the extension if
> you wish to accept > 16KB of compressed header data. HTTP/1.1 servers were
> not required to support it any more than they are today.
>
> On Jul 2, 2014, at 7:21 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Jason T. Greene
> WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>
>