- From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:23:27 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 8/13/14, 1:29 PM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >I think that I got these. > >On 4 August 2014 12:34, Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) ><robby.simpson@ge.com> wrote: >> Various ASCII art header figures show fields aligned on byte and word >> boundaries (e.g., "DATA Frame Payload", "HEADERS Frame Payload", >>"Setting >> Format", "PUSH_PROMISE Payload Format"). The text doesn't mention this >>at >> all. Is byte and word alignment intended? > >Byte, yes. Word, no. So I think I've confused the issue by talking about words. What I really mean is that the ASCII art shows fields starting at 32-bit boundaries when they do not. For example (from the latest Editors' copy): 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length (24) | +---------------+---------------+---------------+ | Type (8) | Flags (8) | +-+-+-----------+---------------+-------------------------------+ |R| Stream Identifier (31) | +=+=============================================================+ | Frame Payload (0...) ... +---------------------------------------------------------------+ This makes it look like "Type" begins at bit 32. Whereas I would think the specification states something like: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Length (24) | Type (8) | +---------------+-+-----------------------------+---------------+ | Flags (8) |R| Stream Identifier (31) +---------------+-+-------------+===============================+ | Frame Payload (0...) ... +-------------------------------+===============================+ If you agree, let me know and I can check out an editors' copy and take a stab at them. >>9.2 states "Implementations of HTTP/2 MUST support TLS 1.2 [TLS12] for >> HTTP/2 over TLS." then "An implementation of HTTP/2 over TLS MUST use >>TLS >> 1.2 or higher with the restrictions on feature set and cipher suite >> described in this section." So which is it? == 1.2 or >= 1.2 > >It's >= 1.2. Supporting 1.2 is a natural prerequisite of all TLS >versions above 1.2. I'm not convinced - to me there is a difference between "MUST support 1.2" vs. "MUST use 1.2 or higher".
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2014 19:23:53 UTC