- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:04:15 +0000
- To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CA+pLO_iLa7ZUq0qwCwA57siYLY1xzqw_=+LOTRcemkzKUS7FFg@mail.gmail.com> , Jeff Pinner writes: >On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: >> In message <A8DFE59E-E342-4833-BA40-AD81B2A646D9@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri >> tes: >>><https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/549> >> >>>> * 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. >> >> The fundamental problem is that CONTINUATIONS started for >> one reason (superframes) and got hi-jacked for something >> else (pipelining) which gives them the horrid exceptional >> behaviour in the current draft. > >> At the very least that means that the END_STREAM bit goes on the >> last frame on the stream, be it a HEADERS, PUSH_PROMISE or a >> pipelining CONTINUATION frame. > >Moving all of the flags to the last CONTINUATION frame requires even >more error handling. Are you suggesting that ? I havn't seen anybody else do so ? >Moving just one of the flags is yet another exceptional case that >requires more logic. I think it makes everything much easier if END_STREAM always sits on the packet which closes the stream. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 08:21:00 UTC