Resent-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:00:36 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XL1ZE-0006Ux-3m@frink.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
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
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list

--f46d0444e9b79f23f6050143240d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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.

--f46d0444e9b79f23f6050143240d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On 23 August 2014 10:19, Martin Thomson <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:martin.thomson@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">martin.thomson@gmail.com</=
a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=3D":67e" class=3D"a3s" style=3D"over=
flow:hidden">
That is now doubly so:<br>
<a href=3D"https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/commit/ec57ba8fbc8d20d2ccae7=
99a6a581666dce3d2f4" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/=
commit/ec57ba8fbc8d20d2ccae799a6a581666dce3d2f4</a></div></blockquote></div=
>
<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Oh - I thought we were still favouring=
 allowing arbitrary placement of extension frames.=C2=A0=C2=A0 If we don=
9;t allow them to be within header blocks, then we can stick with the simpl=
er 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).=
<br>
<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">I&#39;m ok with that clarification.<br=
><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">cheers<br><br></div><div class=3D"gma=
il_extra"><br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br clear=3D"all"><br>--=
 <br><div dir=3D"ltr">
Greg Wilkins &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gregw@intalio.com" target=3D"_blank">gre=
gw@intalio.com</a>&gt; <br><a href=3D"http://eclipse.org/jetty" target=3D"_=
blank">http://eclipse.org/jetty</a> HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client=
 that scales<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.webtide.com" target=3D"_blank">http://www.webtide.com=
</a>=C2=A0 advice and support for jetty and cometd.<span style=3D"font-fami=
ly:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"></span></div>
</div></div>

--f46d0444e9b79f23f6050143240d--