W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 05:17:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_h99JaZ-dd_LqvMKZvokAhTB7RhLCGp5cW5sTxAr=yNWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>>>> 5) Allowing interleaving of CONTINUATION frames with other frames.
>>>
>>> Admittedly better than the status quo, but still not entirely clear why this is necessary. i.e. why not 1*HEADERS instead?
>>
>> Let's agree on the general approach before we go into tweaking.
>
> This is NOT a tweak!  If header fragmentation can be accomplished with 1*HEADERS instead of HEADERS+CONTINUATION*, then keeping CONTINUATION is just keeping complexity for the sake of being too bothered to remove it. I keep bringing it up because nobody has provided a satisfactory answer as to why we still need CONTINUATION of we remove the reference set from HPACK.

CONTINUATION frames simplify the processing of multiple header blocks
since the HEADERS / PUSH_PROMISE frames contain other fields that
CONTINUATION cannot have. As long as HEADERS contains a priority field
and PUSH_PROMISE a promised stream ID, CONTINUATION frames make error
handling simpler.
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 12:18:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC