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

Martin Thomson <> Sun, 28 July 2013 07:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A9D21F9684 for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O3fbxhOMw3GE for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A5821F90CC for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1V3LjL-00074d-9a for; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:49:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:49:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1V3LjC-00073d-L5 for; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:49:18 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1V3Lj9-0002N0-T5 for; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 07:49:18 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id hi8so153731wib.3 for <>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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 with SMTP id r3mr39591429wjw.5.1374997729383; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:48:49 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
To: Patrick McManus <>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
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: 1V3Lj9-0002N0-T5 dfc49d1be8fe06b2e8705446aff53f4f
Subject: Re: question on non header block data of chained HEADERS and PP
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/18938
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On 26 July 2013 11:14, Patrick McManus <> 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