W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2016

draft-bishop-httpbis-extended-settings-00 comments

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:53:21 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW6Yowz2PGzXDCx3g9wC66HfjMWqW=nU0yLUXVxB1s+RA@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I am conflicted about this draft.  On the one hand, it's the design we
should have had for HTTP/2.  I like that it's more general, saves
space in most cases, and includes a flag to request acknowledgment.
All these are real improvements.

On the other hand, I don't think we need it now, and I'm not convinced
that will ever need it.  At some level, we can achieve the same effect
with careful use of SETTINGS and new frames.  For that reason, I'm
inclined to keep this on hold until we identify a few things that
depend on this.

-- on the details:

Section 2.  I think that SETTINGS_EXTENDED_SETTINGS is redundant.  You
can simply send the EXTENDED_SETTINGS frame to indicate that you
support it and have a reason to do so.  In most cases, the need to
support the frame will come with a need to send the frame, so it's a
pretty simple optimization.

What do you want to do about Http2-Settings?  Have we given up on the
pretense that there is a cleartext variant of HTTP/2?
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2016 04:53:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:54 UTC