- From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 09:04:38 +1000
- To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>, Brad Lassey <lassey@chromium.org>, Kari Hurtta <khurtta@welho.com>
- Message-ID: <CACweHNCMr5WVOudrQnWBmPQUWg-NoacrCJLDcwbFA_6MiXs4=A@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 04:10, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> wrote: > > On Wed., 31 Jul. 2019, 02:56 Lucas Pardue, <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Kari, > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:52 PM Kari Hurtta < > hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Why boolean ("ENABLE") ? > > > > > > > > > > > At the risk of bike-shedding, I think calling it "enable" is a bit of an > > issue. The setting, as an advertisement of the sender's capability, > should > > say something like "will ignore" (for disabling 7540 priorities) or "can > > understand" (for enabling some other scheme). > > > > Unless we also feel the need to advertise "will not send"? > > > > Cheers > > -- > > Matthew Kerwin > > Yes, > > > SETTINGS_ENABLE_* typically changes how HTTP/2 connection is > prosessed or allows some usages which otherwise produce > protocol error (example: SETTINGS_ENABLE_CONNECT_PROTOCOL). > > Therefore these these typically allows only 0 ⇒ 1 transitions. > Feature which is enabled, is not allowed to be turned off because > it may effect handling of frames which are already sent by > other peer. > > "Typically"? In the old testament there is only one 'ENABLE' type setting, and its initial value is 1. The extended canon introduces a single new setting that works the other way. Also remember: the initial handshake includes settings, so these can be disabled from the beginning; and: settings have an ACK, so you have a definite epoch where "already sent" no longer applies. But yeah. what's significant about them is, 1 or 0, what they say is: "the recipient of this setting must/must not send a frame of this type". I.e. the sender of the setting says, "I will/won't understand these frames". It's not "I will/won't *send* them myself." I think that means we're agreeing that 'ENABLE' isn't the right word. > Therefore I think that > > SETTINGS_PROVIDE_HTTP2_PRIORITIES > > is better name than > > SETTINGS_ENABLE_HTTP2_PRIORITIES > > > In other words this does not chahneg parsing of HTTP/2 > frames. Even when this is set to 0, sending priorities > does not cause protocol error. > > In SETTINGS_PROVIDE_HTTP2_PRIORITIES server asks > client to provide (or not provide) http/2 tree > priorities. > > > ( Another possible name is > > SETTINGS_PROVIDE_TREE_PRIORITIES > > ) > > / Kari Hurtta > Cheers -- Matthew Kerwin https://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2019 23:05:11 UTC