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

#557 Intra-Message HEADERS frames was: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 21:35:59 +0000
To: <mnot@mnot.net>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6C14550A-0A58-4C00-9CC2-56C9ED9E2B37@iaea.org>
https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/557

On 12 Jul 2014, at 23:29, "MORGAN, Keith Shearl" <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:
>
> On 11 Jul 2014, at 15:22, "jpinner@twitter.com" <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
>
>> It
>> also prevents experimenting with the type of inter-message HEADERS
>> frames that some people wanted (streaming checksums and the like) that
>> are currently permitted to be sent but have no "semantic" mapping to
>> HTTP/1.1
>
> I'm all for this, but I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Re-using HEADERS frames for this purpose is confusing. Are they hpack encoded? What does it mean if you get an intra-message HEADERS frame and END_HEADERS is set? Is END_STREAM allowed?
>
> Why not just add a simple METADATA frame and be done with it?

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 Saturday, 12 July 2014 21:36:33 UTC

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