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


From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:47:35 -0400
Message-Id: <A8DFE59E-E342-4833-BA40-AD81B2A646D9@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

In the issue comments, Martin points out the reasoning behind the current design:

> To articulate the reasons for the current design:
> 	 END_STREAM has no place on PUSH_PROMISE, or continuations thereof.
> 	 Placing END_STREAM on HEADERS ensures that there is no possibility for stupid errors where you have END_STREAM but not END_HEADERS.
> 	 CONTINUATIONS are in most respects a way to create a single frame from many. Logically, they are part of the preceding HEADERS/PUSH_PROMISE. Adding some flags from the preceding frame but not others is conceptually muddy.
> I don't recall any complaint from people actually implementing the protocol.

The first point is the one Im focusing on; it seems like there are arguments on both sides as to how this could be confusing, making it a toss-up (and thus inclining me to close the issue with no action).

Any further discussion? Could we address the issue that people have by clarifying the text, perhaps?

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 20 July 2014 19:47:59 UTC

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