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

Permissible states for extension frames #591

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:03:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVgnJSmJW2B4nJ8Vb-Nwi3EF2pra7D_m8uqZfQ8H1a2eA@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
We don't really say this, but the implication is that an extension
frame can appear anywhere, for any stream. Worst case, you can have
frames appearing with any stream number at any time.

Are we OK with this?

Or... do we want to limit the sending of extension frames on streams
somehow. Note that the most permissibly constrained frame type is
PRIORITY, which can appear in any state other than "idle". A similar
constraint would be relatively easy to enact.

A tighter scope, like just "open" and the sending-permitted
"half-closed" variant, would be even easier to enact, but might reduce
the utility of extension frames.

-- https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/591
Received on Monday, 11 August 2014 22:03:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC