- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 14:43:20 -0700
- To: Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>
- Cc: Matthew Cox <macox@microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 5 August 2014 14:30, Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't understand this answer in the context of the original > question, can you please expand ? Matthew seems concerned about having to enforce frame cardinality rules based on frame contents. This is a legitimate concern. Previously, a request or response was one HEADERS, some number of DATA and maybe another HEADERS. Simple. With the 1xx change, now you can have 0..n HEADERS frames before that sequence and you can't know if they are valid until a) you look at :status, and b) you receive the next frame (because a non 1xx status is only valid if it is followed by DATA, or maybe trailers for the particularly cunning or perverse). All I'm suggesting is that you can divide the problem into two: look at the frames, if the count is good pass them on. Then, at the HTTP layer, when you are looking for other things, you can check :status, along with all the other pseudo-header stuff.
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 21:43:48 UTC