IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591

Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> Sat, 23 August 2014 03:03 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 BF5581A70E2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 oFnWIG0AgEHY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:03:49 -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 992E71A0B10 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XL1ZE-0006Ux-3m for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:00:36 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:00:36 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XL1ZE-0006Ux-3m@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <gregw@intalio.com>) id 1XL1Ye-0003k6-9y for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:00:00 +0000
Received: from mail-we0-f181.google.com ([74.125.82.181]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <gregw@intalio.com>) id 1XL1Yd-0002J9-5y for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:00:00 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id k48so11129257wev.26 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 19:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=DZXeq7dHTbnixrbZAzAOFxqA/YMSbGWfDBnJ8iRlH3E=; b=QBg/FzuhYQ7ztn0LB65rApx/5ajg43ChE83UeqMOS+o4wgybGYfAanNnHP29kDxtlt 5k4vujOXA76l8eLY0MegculyrbzzLeUi3DkhOzyCL05sU6UTeJwHHztUbdeQkxVxLWoS cRoFCRPtPowkpE6ve9m6O3G+RCW+POFeuakhKBDR6lIs4JQT7wfBmeerkYcjEBPzXlAa qsmkFX1ND2mHNIgSqfU4phKy1vHyGbj4I6/KrEe5AqWqKlnH0VuTUQJEuUOobcieXgBx 4wGHvTkaW/QJh4wSy4capvPtfVBvCGRffg0n/SdgGY3GHea11rSpwj0Lm/tcQqxF9YUN Un5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn3ztZQqjq88qPGZbMQ4K2sbvzyWGfGLa3Cu67rKf73g5zCP9KE4M1r8XFwhj+MnNTArSvf
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.85.136 with SMTP id h8mr1825211wiz.67.1408762772390; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 19:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.169.98 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 19:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWEwreC5VyMFDuhJRvtv-FBPYq2-8_VcWa6VuG9_PAgrw@mail.gmail.com>
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>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:59:32 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NHUbeYaFR8bu=tHa0to73vAsiV+x1EdWsQ3-4gJiNdbOA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0444e9b79f23f6050143240d"
Received-SPF: permerror client-ip=74.125.82.181; envelope-from=gregw@intalio.com; helo=mail-we0-f181.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.081, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XL1Yd-0002J9-5y 1858dc5a6112f671b529c7655ca48401
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Permissible states for extension frames #591
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAH_y2NHUbeYaFR8bu=tHa0to73vAsiV+x1EdWsQ3-4gJiNdbOA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26719
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>

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.

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status