- From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 22:09:39 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 8/4/14, 6:05 PM, "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com> wrote: >On 8/4/14, 5:39 PM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>As for alignment, I realize that we're not perfect, but the only way >>>>to get alignment is to pad, and no one has been willing to do that. >>> >>> My first suggestion is to not make the 'E' bit optional in the HEADERS >>> Frame Payload. >> >>Whether E is present is coupled to whether the priority field is >>present. We do have byte alignment, just not word alignment (whatever >>that happens to be on your platform [1]). > >How does one have byte alignment without 'E'? > >[Pad Length (8)] + Stream Dependency (31) + [Weight (8)] is my read. Doh! Please ignore - I see my mistake now. My apologies.
Received on Monday, 4 August 2014 22:10:11 UTC