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

Re: #557: Intra-message HEADERS frames

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:08:28 -0400
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FA8721C1-6FF2-4061-9F2E-F317E64E5209@mnot.net>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
I donít hear a strong direction on this issue from the WG, so Iím inclined to let the editor take the lead here unless strong opinions emerge (keeping in mind the changes to allow a non-final status code, which means the wording needs to be a bit different here).

The choices seem to be:

- PROTOCOL_ERROR upon a HEADERS where not expected

- ignore a HEADERS thatís not expected

Cheers,


On 21 Jul 2014, at 9:07 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 July 2014 12:43, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> Section 8.1 already says:
>> 
>>> Header blocks after the first that do not terminate the stream are not part of an HTTP request or response.
>> 
>> <http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#HttpSequence>
>> 
>> Do we need to say anything else here, or can we go ahead and close this issue?
> 
> Here I'll point out my mess-up of this:
> 
> A recent edit of Section 8.1 changed this to say:
> 
>> A HEADERS frame (and associated CONTINUATION frames) can only appear at the start or end of a stream. An endpoint that receives a second HEADERS frame without the END_STREAM flag set MUST treat the corresponding request or response as malformed (Section 8.1.2.5).
> 
> That's the alternative.  It's easy to back this out, depending on the
> outcome of this discussion.
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 14:08:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 September 2019 17:48:20 UTC