- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 15:47:35 -0400
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
<https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/549> 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 I’m 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