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

Re: h2 Connection Preface

From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:44:52 +0000
To: Lucas Pardue <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D0377340.3A0B4%Robby.Simpson@GE.com>
On 9/10/14, 6:32 AM, "Lucas Pardue" <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk> wrote:


>Following the change made at
>https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/commit/293e6d041fd9a903ee6dd10b4eee,
>I can more clearly see how the proposed sequence was mistaken.
>
>> 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.
>
>I think we are talking cross purposes, I was focussed more on Upgrade
>scenario and the SETTINGS redundancy between HTTP2-Settings and the
>connection preface. Having done some more reading in the mailing lists
>(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/0048.html) I
>agree with the intentions of having both; similar codepaths regardless of
>entry point, minimal HTTP2-Settings in the HTTP etc.
>
>The argument for similar codepaths would also answer Robby's concern #1.

How so?  From what I can tell, my concern #1 is the same regardless of
entry point.  It essentially comes down to the difference of all code
paths sending an empty SETTINGS frame when they wish to stick with the
defaults, or all code paths moving on (and saving the SETTINGS frame and
the corresponding ACK).

That said, I understand that changing it at this point may not be
desirable if we do not want to make "breaking" changes.
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 19:45:25 UTC

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