- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:04:18 +0000
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- In message <25E37A5F-6120-4D84-A1EC-2830C0B41537@gbiv.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" w rites: > 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 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Stream Identifier (32) | > +---------------+-----------------------------------------------+ > | Frame Type(8) | Payload Length (24) | > +=+=============================================================+ > | Frame Payload (0...) ... > +---------------------------------------------------------------+ > >Rationale for B: > > The current usage of frame flags in spec-14 is frightening. > In all cases, they can and should be separate frame types. I'm 100% behind with Roy here. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Friday, 29 August 2014 23:04:42 UTC