- From: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:45:44 +0800
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 08:46:19 UTC
On 2014–07–21, at 4:04 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > I think it makes everything much easier if END_STREAM always sits > on the packet which closes the stream. HTTP frames aren’t packets. The implementation needs a persistent internal flag to signal cleanup at the end of the block, whether the END_STREAM is received at the start of a frame, jumbo frame, super-multi-frame, or whatever. Since END_STREAM is only defined for HEADERS and DATA, I don’t think it’s fair to say that headers make a special case. CONTINUATION is a special case in other ways, of course, and I hope we can see through superficial differences and give jumbo HEADERS frames a size limit pass, rather than attempt the same with a convoluted definition of what a “frame” is.
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 08:46:19 UTC