Re: SYN_REPLY

[Roberto Peon <[e-mail]>]

Shall I take that as an agreement? :)
-=R


On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Martin Thomson
<[e-mail]>wrote:

> Opcode or flags, it matters not.  It depends on where you want to
> spend your bit (or part thereof).
>
> On 27 February 2013 10:45, Roberto Peon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > The we're wasting bytes on responses. Bleh. Worse, now we can't simply
> > examine the length field to figure out what to do. Double-eww.
> > In any case, spending a bit in the flags, is far more costly than
> spending
> > the fractional bit out of the opcode space, which is what is done today!
> >
> > Something I could go with, given the previous change would be to also
> change
> > the name of SYN_STREAM to HEADERS_WITH_PRIO
> > and leave HEADERS as it is.
> >
> > How does that sound?
> >
> >
> > -=R
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Martin Thomson <
> [e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 26 February 2013 20:16, Roberto Peon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> > Taking the priority out of SYN_STREAM would only bloat things on the
> >> > wire,
> >> > since the client will always want to state priority for a new stream.
> I
> >> > don't support removing priority from SYN_STREAM.
> >>
> >> What if HEADERS contained priority?  Is your objection to removing
> >> priority from SYN_STREAM, or removing priority from the first frame in
> >> the stream.
> >>
> >> Here's a more concrete proposal, albeit slightly radical.
> >>
> >> Remove SYN_STREAM and SYN_REPLY.
> >> Have stream-level flags that appear in ALL messages.
> >>  1. last frame in stream (the existing FIN bit)
> >>  2. stream priority (a new one)
> >> The 'stream priority' flag indicates that the first 4 bytes of the
> >> frame payload includes a priority.  This should (or SHOULD) be set on
> >> the first frame of any stream.
> >>
> >> Then a typical stream looks like:
> >>  - a HEADERS frame with the 'stream priority' flag set, plus a priority
> >>  - a bunch of data frames
> >>  - maybe some other frames
> >
> >
>