Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Tue, 28 May 2013 19:33:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) 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: Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) 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 ) 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 ; 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: References: Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 19:31:16 -0700 Message-ID: From: Roberto Peon To: Jeff Pinner Cc: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= , Martin Thomson , James M Snell , Patrick McManus , "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: Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/18139 X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: --001a11c2033019394404ddd22df4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable yup. Not a big deal either way. :) -=3DR On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Jeff Pinner 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 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= . >> >> -=3DR >> >> >> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, William Chan (=E9=99=88=E6=99=BA=E6=98= =8C) < >> 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 w= ay >>> to convey priority within the same frame as the headers. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Jeff Pinner wrot= e: >>> >>>> 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 ba= sed >>>> 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." >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > --001a11c2033019394404ddd22df4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
yup. Not a big deal either way. :)
-=3DR


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 acknow= ledge the extra branch in the frame decoder -- though i think it might remo= ve 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 app= roach is easier (I have a single branch instead of nested branches), but do= n't think it is a big deal either way.
-=3DR


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Willia= m Chan (=E9=99=88=E6=99=BA=E6=98=8C) <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 2= 8, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wro= te:
At the time Roberto made th= e 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 Con= trol 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 argume= nt is valid any more.


On Tue, May 2= 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
I remember having almost this exact discussi= on in Tokyo. =C2=A0The 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."





--001a11c2033019394404ddd22df4--