- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 16:20:41 +1100
- To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Jeff, This seems like an optimisation -- everyone (including you) were willing to have the flag there beforehand. It doesn't cause any security or interop problems, so I'm inclined to hold this change to the same bar as similar ones brought up recently -- it needs pretty much universal acclaim to get through. Who supports this change, and is anyone against it? Regards, > On 2 Dec 2014, at 11:28 am, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote: > > With the change from -15 to -16 to allow PRIORITY frames to be sent at > any time, why is the PRIORITY flag retained on the HEADERS frame? > > Was this an oversight or intentional? > > IIRC we added the flag there because of the race condition where you > couldn't send priority information for a stream that wasn't yet open > and need a HEADERS frame to open the stream. > > Now that you can send the PRIORITY frame before the HEADERS that opens > the stream there is no need to append the priority information and the > parsing of the HEADERS frame can be simplified. > > - Jeff > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2014 05:21:09 UTC