- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 15:54:48 +1100
- To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
<https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/663> Based on the responses so far, I'd say we're not going to get an easy win here. I'm closing this but marking as revisit-upon-change. Thanks, > On 2 Dec 2014, at 4:20 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > 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/ > > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2014 04:55:16 UTC