- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:21:54 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Can we close this issue with that change? I.e., does anyone want to go further than disallowing extension frames between header-bearing frames? Regards, On 23 Aug 2014, at 12:59 pm, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > On 23 August 2014 10:19, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > That is now doubly so: > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/commit/ec57ba8fbc8d20d2ccae799a6a581666dce3d2f4 > > Oh - I thought we were still favouring allowing arbitrary placement of extension frames. If we don't allow them to be within header blocks, then we can stick with the simpler state machine, with the cost that extensions must be HTTP semantic away... but I think they pretty much have to be anyway (without radical change). > > I'm ok with that clarification. > > cheers > > > > > > -- > Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> > http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales > http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 25 August 2014 00:22:24 UTC