Re: Final DATA frames

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:34 PM Ryan Hamilton <> wrote:
> As you say, there's a valid use case here. There's nothing about this particular design which would prevent any sort of "send the body on a unidirectional stream" extension from being worked on or implemented. That some future extension might (or might not) be a better solution to this use case does not seem to me to be a terribly compelling argument for reverting this, particularly given the simplicity of this design.

It creates uncertainty about whether the design is appropriate.

> (I'll also point out that delivering the body on a unidirectional stream doesn't necessarily work will with server push, as the PUSH_PROMISE is required to arrive before the reference to the promised resource. So if the PUSH_PROMISE happens on the main stream and the body goes on a different stream, that ordering is not guaranteed without some addition properties.)

I apologize.  I didn't mean to imply that I thought this had better
properties WRT PUSH_PROMISE.

Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2018 01:55:49 UTC