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

Re: h2 frame layout

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:49:41 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNCRHHyG9Tr+TBEfC2nKoioA3GVGLYtSU0mCa4ERtMwbOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 30 August 2014 15:18, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> --------
> In message <
> CACweHNBe5o7_tmTXGqhRBGBAZPoDVJHKToGm7ARee4oqURupfw@mail.gmail.com>
> , Matthew Kerwin writes:
>
> >I'm much less keen on reducing the size of frame_type field, because that
> >would limit my ability to play with my toys^H^H^H^Hextensions[2][3].
>
> There's a word for protocols which need 256 frame types:  "Wrong".
>
>
It only *needs* the ten or so it has. I'll rephrase: I'm much less keen on
reducing the size of frame_type field to 4 bits; I don't believe we need
256 types, but 16 is too restrictive, and personally I don't want to go
introducing a non-nibble-aligned chunk into the header without good cause.
Thus, I round up to 8 bits, instead of down to 4.

Either way, I prefer something like option B > current spec > option A; but
they're all livable.

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2014 01:50:09 UTC

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