RE: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change

Thanks for all the feedback regarding this proposal (option #1).

Given the feedback, I think this option is a non-starter.  Unless somebody feels strongly otherwise, I am going to close this pull request in favor of the new proposal we just submitted: 'Large Frame Proposal'.

-keith


On Monday,30 June 2014 20:00, MORGAN, Keith Shearl wrote:

On Friday,27 June 2014 09:36, mnot@mnot.net wrote:
> Can someone please provide a proposal?

I've incorporated many of the ideas mentioned on the list and in the NYC minutes to create a proposal that (I believe) accomplishes the goals with a minimum amount of change.

Changes:
+ Only the HEADERS and PUSH_PROMISE frames can alter the compression context.
+ CONTINUATION frames can only use hpack literals (optionally Huffman encoded) that don't alter the table.
  - CONTINUATION is flow controlled
  - CONTINUATION has an END_STREAM flag

Benefits:
+ Simplifies CONTINUATION implementation
  - i.e. fixes the nonsensical END_STREAM that doesn't actually end the stream
+ Flow control of CONTINUATION:
  - removes the incentive for implementations to cheat and send large amounts of data in the HEADERS+CONTINUATION jumbo frames
  - may help with certain HOL blocking situations (e.g. connection coalescing)

See pull request here: https://github.com/shearl/http2-spec/commit/5a548553334e35cbba5946d238e9a14c6ba03f7e


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 Monday, 7 July 2014 09:01:01 UTC