- From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 20:38:58 +0300 (EEST)
- To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Brad Lassey <lassey@chromium.org>, Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
< ⋯ > > > In Montreal we also discussed a possible experiment where the H2 PRIORITY > > frame contents would be repurposed, which requires a compatible server to > > read it correctly. In this case the signal would be more like "will send in > > an RFC7540-incompatible format". > > > > Lucas > > > > Eurgh, why? Are we that short on frame types? > > Cheers > -- > Matthew Kerwin > https://matthew.kerwin.net.au/ Yes, it makes sense to allocate new type number for PRIORITY when frame content is repurposed. Also is make sense to allocate new type number for HEADERS when "Stream Dependency" or "Weight" field of HEADERS frame conrent is repurposed. That avaind dance about on what point on time change of "Stream Dependency" / "Weight" field" field happens. If you are running out of framer's type numbers, reserve some number for "extended type number". ☻ / Kari Hurtta
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2019 17:39:36 UTC