Re: Design Issue: Separate HEADERS and PRIORITY Frames, Eliminate HEADERS+PRIORITY

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Wed, 29 May 2013 02:33 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB0B21F8DB7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:33:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id juDUlfCmBbun for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92B1121F8D90 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UhWBD-00068f-DV for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 02:31:59 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 02:31:59 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UhWBD-00068f-DV@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UhWB1-00067v-1U for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 02:31:47 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com ([209.85.214.181]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UhWAw-0003C4-Ak for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 29 May 2013 02:31:46 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f181.google.com with SMTP id 16so696426obc.26 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=yvj5tCjNglk8zxmS8rZIvyiErAHkC73GL6u/wnMoCmU=; b=sqx23xBvAMA+Eab/oSI3qPFgdSD/eFlbni8fEVAQsTSRLefzoRBvVKV1saHzfZMQ1Z 2aL2CbLqPcMctPBOnQSkDXQd9Xs9GVUEJjKxE6VQVGb/z4ifKGQ60u1rIieuTIIrVJR3 0tr4FE23nlcdWzRtN2qExkp7umCDJoZhJJ7TdZkvAfvvAMyN67tHYRlNp47NMDPfwEhn XL8JRK2mnFWGPb0Rq/yGsw9UD1AqN1V4rL2I6BR4F7rZ9pHv64hlJn28nHMWxtXgBVkD CfK5RENMdIoIfXfn1vbBpzp/dAALUX62z9TggfuJZuD1fDv+2Wgb6jQetFlUIPGbLnpW jQXw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.56.107 with SMTP id z11mr336326oep.99.1369794676338; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.169.68 with HTTP; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+pLO_hZBQ80XX0UxLRB2v3=bGYtbOBJY7GFGdiqO5Y9+w1JPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbfX_H_7dwM7ExL5qJgpV5JN1NYyv9tqnu_E23qGk63mWg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYhDhoS+BNknRnYLAOXfWzumcjkWnQnM=NkNM8oqqE=atw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNqkuY5qtOzFz5J0v1F1_n8HmFY9J==sXMs_9tDrTTE=cg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYhZb_ScYZ=F8ypGkXkX=3oK+4TnyWOtuN_FNkZqqhbZLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbeAwrT15QKn5kL0=w+V0zBgObe_pOzT-NxbwSrZ_RyA+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNd95pXcPM1OiG2qjOyXKV80noh2frdEbORwe6HxsgeK3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbfOWdaOVeVSmnrqUtHM5F8=xjLauDBoRbpijWsWxyK+rw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_g892Cr1B8GtN01j1GArU0+Mkoya2UAAb893ZrfKdyeEA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNe4=hVsm3sNerAdELECHz_2m8aWOLK-Kif-JVz_G=HyKw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_jaDNWyZyxsWVQ2YuBG8kuZjo1KovmBVfa2d9vVYb56dg@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNd0AZEDXvTD7uvEgFK-4GRShj9tEcam0C68t4S_ySTNUw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_i84tPbrVZgE-0uLeZs5UB0wY2PLn=R9V74ZUe+0TyfiA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNcWfdgtW+-6tpXgcAPZSNHOdBuoMXLY4nPyf4YoLTeotg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_gV4YS6FVMiQ0rzDEHCYnOJdeGftY4Z0nm18qfaQBdofA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNfBoh6wcqTUHfHPhbf8zZ4Vj=i2Lg4bEG5wcyuUwz60eQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_j8CX9vddtogsjz80uN=kv6vE7V1dJqEuJdTtGO64PYyw@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbdUSLTN1YJDkigfqvMJw7hUh4Uv+CYSsFETn6N+EQ0NdA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXWZ3pGhOugkTBQG2=0J8PdTkeefqToCsrGGQVV=rv=gQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_iYO-12DaBfAqHJPzBR0hG3Qf7C+vFkRL3m+g7EHKtJfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYh5ghPLBwHpezZ-dq7TjNXM2t+5oFppRaJ7eJ_M_Zd3BA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdxzgA019iez-HkJyS6cxM9EZ_HdsdmaK4mv6oTDzUSVg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_hZBQ80XX0UxLRB2v3=bGYtbOBJY7GFGdiqO5Y9+w1JPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:31:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfWXXX8=NZUO7VFOHzWNiGeFf3hQRJ26Hur6z6QRrONbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= <willchan@chromium.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2033019394404ddd22df4
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.181; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f181.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.645, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UhWAw-0003C4-Ak eb7d5fab647c929f391f879c2c16cb49
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: Separate HEADERS and PRIORITY Frames, Eliminate HEADERS+PRIORITY
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNfWXXX8=NZUO7VFOHzWNiGeFf3hQRJ26Hur6z6QRrONbw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18139
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>

yup. Not a big deal either way. :)
-=R


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> My preference for flag over opcode has to do with "one frame to open
> streams" while I acknowledge the extra branch in the frame decoder --
> though i think it might remove a branch in the session management code :)
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that the opcode approach is easier (I have a single branch
>> instead of nested branches), but don't think it is a big deal either way.
>>
>> -=R
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <
>> willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I have feelings about this bike shed color, but I don't care enough to
>>> argue why mine is the best color ever. I am satisfied that there is a way
>>> to convey priority within the same frame as the headers.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>wrote;wrote:
>>>
>>>> At the time Roberto made the argument that the number of flags (8) was
>>>> more sparse than the number of frame types (256), but IIRC this was based
>>>> on the flags applying to all Control frames. At this point we have (at
>>>> least implicitly) decided that flags are frame-type specific (see PONG
>>>> flag), so I don't believe the argument is valid any more.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Martin Thomson <
>>>> martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I remember having almost this exact discussion in Tokyo.  The only
>>>>> point that didn't come up this time was an argument Roberto made,
>>>>> namely: "A frame type is cheaper (fewer bits) than a flag."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>