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: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 09:34:19 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNCh_DPtej7==JD2+kOP-wouQTVrEhEn1cYN-YH-7YNxVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 1 September 2014 08:59, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

> On 31 August 2014 03:32, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> BTW, none of those suggestions change semantics.
> Well maybe not strictly a semantic change, but B is certainly a
> significant change that can't be made without forcing further significant
> change in the protocol (which is not necessarily a bad thing).   I think
> the protocol has a number of highly co-dependent design decision that while
> they are self consistent, also make it very fragile to change.
‚Äč(Snipping rest of post)

Repeating myself again, but: what do you think of an option C: remove Flags
from the general frame header, and add individual Flags fields to whichever
frame types require them?

* flags aren't universal (see: 0x1) so you can't act on them without having
inspected the frame_type field anyway
* many frame types don't have any flags at all
* by simply removing the field, the generic header goes back to being 64

Thus we neither change semantics nor wobble the house of cards; we just
move the flags to the place where they make sense. Practically editorial.

  Matthew Kerwin
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2014 23:34:47 UTC

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