Re: reserved flags and extensions

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 03:57:03PM +0300, Yoav Nir wrote:
> I think regardless of what we do, changing the framing of HTTP/2 will cause
> breakage by at least a subset of ?frame sniffers?, and therefore that is
> something we shouldn?t do.

It just depends whether we consider that they will exist and whether or
not we indicate them an easy fallback solution (eg: clearing a bit must
be possible even for hardware-assisted devices). Anyway, I'm mentionning
this since larger frames have been suggested several times as been
proposed later as an extension and I'm quite sure that at least without
minimal efforts like this it cannot be done at all.

> If we want a different framing, we should neg^H^H^H advertise it not in
> HTTP/2?s SETTINGS frame, but in ALPN/Upgrade and call it HTTP/3 or HTTP/2.1. 

The problem here is that it may quickly require a large number of versions
especially if multiple extensions are defined.


Received on Sunday, 13 July 2014 17:38:04 UTC