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

Re: h2 Connection Preface

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 15:31:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXDJBmQs2dg4tfQiSdTo0aXutAm8Grzm=kLUvWVOVc=5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lucas Pardue <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 9 September 2014 10:02, Lucas Pardue <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> 1. Client sends Upgrade request including SETTINGS in HTTP2-Settings header field
> 2. Server does not need to ACK (1) (as explained in 3.2.1, however that runs contrary to the MUST described in 6.5)
> 3. Server sends 101 Switching Protocol
> 4. Server sends SETTINGS
> 5. Client ACKS (4)
> 6. Client sends preface including SETTINGS
> 7. Server ACKS (6)
> 8. Server provides response to request 1

I sometimes worry that people intentionally misread the spec to make a
point.  Do you really expect the above to work with steps 5 and 6 as
shown?

> My Proposition: If we can bend the rules to remove an ACK in the Upgrade sequence, can we also remove the requirement for a client preface?

That doesn't work.  If one side changes certain settings, like header
table size, the other side needs to know when the change was enacted.
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2014 22:32:20 UTC

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