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

RE: Permissible states for extension frames #591

From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:44:23 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5dfde0949d4449a48cae2fff60020a12@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
We're okay with the current text.  An extension will specify in what states it's valid to send, so this only applies to unknown extensions on receive.  Those will be discarded anyway -- anything beyond that will complicate implementations unnecessarily.

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 3:03 PM
To: HTTP Working Group
Subject: Permissible states for extension frames #591

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 Wednesday, 20 August 2014 20:44:52 UTC

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