- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 15:31:52 -0700
- 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