Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591

On 12 August 2014 13:00, Martin Thomson <> wrote:

> Greg, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with CONTINUATIONS, other
> than to note that extensions would not be permitted within a sequence of
> continuations.


I don't know how it is not related to continuations?    The question was
are we OK with allowing extension frames to appear anywhere for any stream?

I'm not OK with that because of continuation frames, which I believe have
to be sent in a contiguous block.   We have to specify that extensions
frames are OK anywhere except between HEADERS and CONTINUATION and between

I would also be OK with extensions frames anywhere, but only if
continuations allowed interleaving.... the consensus was not to do that, so
we can't allows extension frames anywhere and have to have a more complex
specification for them.

I'm sorry if it looks like I'm trying to fight the already lost
continuation battle.   I'm not, I'm just making sure that we keep the
specification consistent with the complexities of the continuation


Greg Wilkins <> HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 04:51:48 UTC