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

Re: #603: Frame layout

From: Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 21:53:23 +1300
Message-ID: <CAJ3HoZ3gNmde+6nzBJQzYaDdM-+TV2iTQeMM3CZtO-fva9i=dQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Cc: "Nottingham, Mark" <mnotting@akamai.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 29 September 2014 21:23, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, Nottingham, Mark wrote:
>> <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/603>
>> It doesn’t seem like there is consensus to adopt a change here; as many
>> have pointed out, our protocol is not aligned anyway, and the other gains
>> are marginal at best.
>> Anyone feel strongly about this still, or can we WONTFIX?
> I think we should put this suggestion in the queue of things to do with the
> binary format if we for some reason are lead into changing the format for
> some other and more important reason. I don't think these stated motivations
> are enough to (yet again) break the binary format.

If we are going to change it, can we make sure that the websockets
draft will have enough frame types available- I've only just started
reviewing it, but it would be tragic to shrink the number of frame
types just as one of the most obviously predictable additional users
of the transport layer starts to come onboard.


Robert Collins <rbtcollins@hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
Received on Monday, 29 September 2014 08:53:51 UTC

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