Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 25 August 2014 00:25 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F911A88CE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:25:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hXfBJD1XXQUw for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3BE41A6EDC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XLi3W-0000Me-Pu for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:22:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:22:42 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XLi3W-0000Me-Pu@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XLi3E-0000Lr-53 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:22:24 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XLi3D-0002QL-0g for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:22:24 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.123.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9172522E1F3; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 20:21:58 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAH_y2NHUbeYaFR8bu=tHa0to73vAsiV+x1EdWsQ3-4gJiNdbOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:21:54 +1000
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A490C769-EE93-495E-9A19-A5BD4E0D0C91@mnot.net>
References: <CABkgnnVgnJSmJW2B4nJ8Vb-Nwi3EF2pra7D_m8uqZfQ8H1a2eA@mail.gmail.com> <5dfde0949d4449a48cae2fff60020a12@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAH_y2NHiGGcWSza-=aFMwA+1Cp6D2A0AgOoMHioX7jmbzStorg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWEwreC5VyMFDuhJRvtv-FBPYq2-8_VcWa6VuG9_PAgrw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NHUbeYaFR8bu=tHa0to73vAsiV+x1EdWsQ3-4gJiNdbOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.118, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XLi3D-0002QL-0g 8d8eae87c08786510d573d04db7ee09f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/A490C769-EE93-495E-9A19-A5BD4E0D0C91@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26726
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Can we close this issue with that change? I.e., does anyone want to go further than disallowing extension frames between header-bearing frames? Regards, On 23 Aug 2014, at 12:59 pm, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > On 23 August 2014 10:19, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > That is now doubly so: > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/commit/ec57ba8fbc8d20d2ccae799a6a581666dce3d2f4 > > Oh - I thought we were still favouring allowing arbitrary placement of extension frames. If we don't allow them to be within header blocks, then we can stick with the simpler state machine, with the cost that extensions must be HTTP semantic away... but I think they pretty much have to be anyway (without radical change). > > I'm ok with that clarification. > > cheers > > > > > > -- > Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> > http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales > http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Permissible states for extension frames #591 Martin Thomson
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591 Greg Wilkins
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591 Martin Thomson
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591 Greg Wilkins
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591 Amos Jeffries
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591 Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591 Greg Wilkins
- RE: Permissible states for extension frames #591 Mike Bishop
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591 Greg Wilkins
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591 Martin Thomson
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591 Greg Wilkins
- Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591 Mark Nottingham