Re: question on non header block data of chained HEADERS and PP

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Sun, 28 July 2013 07:50 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 E8A9D21F9684 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 O3fbxhOMw3GE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A5821F90CC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V3LjL-00074d-9a for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:49:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:49:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V3LjL-00074d-9a@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1V3LjC-00073d-L5 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:49:18 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1V3Lj9-0002N0-T5 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:49:18 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id hi8so153731wib.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:48:49 -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=HZntIsgCGrM1iFnbKr0vUnHRUqJxABiTXA9b/ChEcnY=; b=DfBzrO0dlr4XxziW82JrA6eBNS/oj4OHcQF6mJiB0e+GFAsdtYprijKW7km2QcAtnt l89MIkC2LEH5JPWeWFMIcAIUGtQT+hjVtOfphQqhtJdxHKlnVRuUFeavqWYoUUxe9Qjf Ipjb9v+8mLW7MUdijtgXZm50RrKrS7GpE7HHqBMrJlVAnSWE8BIE6qtzxvr3zqrdmaK4 JmUp2DJgw4cC5SHHDWcK+LW5f3ijKWXJuNQLI8aRJ1G/0d1dRUuJUmg+KjPeUPK2awFf qt90cSA71rDgN4A2HGFCpfHgBQraoQh+JN+Jt7j76iz36l4t7xBlVrPMq48yxXrZE2+g 1ciA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.77.99 with SMTP id r3mr39591429wjw.5.1374997729383; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.60.46 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOdDvNocFbwFp35A3Eqf9R5jzm02BEErtz0Z9ZN45M_OT+o7wA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOdDvNocFbwFp35A3Eqf9R5jzm02BEErtz0Z9ZN45M_OT+o7wA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:48:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW1ixnvzz2azen1K1=jWHjtHviVX78bwmu641o6OzmvBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.212.182; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f182.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.750, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1V3Lj9-0002N0-T5 dfc49d1be8fe06b2e8705446aff53f4f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: question on non header block data of chained HEADERS and PP
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnW1ixnvzz2azen1K1=jWHjtHviVX78bwmu641o6OzmvBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18938
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 26 July 2013 11:14, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
> HEADERS and PUSH PROMISE can have their header block fragmented among
> multiple contiguous frames. That's clear.
>
> For PP I'm a ltitle unusure how Promised-Stream-ID fits into those
> fragments. Is it present in all of them? the frame diagram seems to assert
> that it is present in every PP frame, but the definition of END_PUSH_PROMISE
> says "the payload of all PUSH_PROMISE frames are concatenated and
> interpreted as a single block". and the Promised-Stream-ID is definitely
> part of the definition of payload (which we have defined as everything after
> the first 8 bytes of frame header).
>
> The right thing is probably that it is present in all of them, but is not
> considered part of the payload for purposes of determining the header block.
> A clarification seems needed. If that's right, do we need a rule saying the
> Promised-Stream-ID must be the same across all the fragments?
>
> I think HEADERS has a similar problem with Priority.. it uses a "payload"
> definition of the headers block that would include priority (but
> shouldn't)...


I think perhaps I had concluded the opposite, but that was before the
priority flag, which can be on a continued frame.  It's not so easy.
I think that we need to pick something either way and write down the
conclusion.

https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/183