Re: Design Issue: Separate HEADERS and PRIORITY Frames, Eliminate HEADERS+PRIORITY

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Tue, 28 May 2013 20:04 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 982AD21F93F4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 bGMgz4scBgOS for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2EC21F93E8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UhQ6c-000414-T2 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:02:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:02:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UhQ6c-000414-T2@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UhQ6Q-0003zb-LZ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:02:38 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UhQ6P-0006Hs-Ic for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:02:38 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id h2so10540131oag.19 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:02:11 -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=Iu4ju/rEVTEGTQQ1+mGvWByucUN9TZ0aj1piojEDsdI=; b=UFkUqC/Y1rT7FC+P7exQ2FvlExnzyXldBWoqKi9/7RTOkwQH13QGttCz3cakdJdH8h zYdTV8mrKeLdzs5gIEXkk9P9uMJLwxIoqt1UHURuEk0JqqDaBd9KXNJFwnR3hpVkXRGU QUbVBQZUWI/k1n0TTXT3NlpmD7dRm2kBgIs78uZXQgQ9HKJs09hYeWmwSwLVeHAN9mVJ Z35kMTPSDEmMkQbe1LhJFoxv5L5zDClKFAO6MBgWVJOrU5Kt+CFVasYQmvQwnGQGNYQ5 t2iplJKZZp7O7JbUJCQkEWT4cEvQBRlVKRf1R7RTVWm0l09HNG+MBYAhO/KElmxuVJFr oSRw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.153.97 with SMTP id vf1mr21797564obb.27.1369771331633; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.169.68 with HTTP; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYh5ghPLBwHpezZ-dq7TjNXM2t+5oFppRaJ7eJ_M_Zd3BA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbfX_H_7dwM7ExL5qJgpV5JN1NYyv9tqnu_E23qGk63mWg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYhDhoS+BNknRnYLAOXfWzumcjkWnQnM=NkNM8oqqE=atw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOdDvNqkuY5qtOzFz5J0v1F1_n8HmFY9J==sXMs_9tDrTTE=cg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYhZb_ScYZ=F8ypGkXkX=3oK+4TnyWOtuN_FNkZqqhbZLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbeAwrT15QKn5kL0=w+V0zBgObe_pOzT-NxbwSrZ_RyA+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNd95pXcPM1OiG2qjOyXKV80noh2frdEbORwe6HxsgeK3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbfOWdaOVeVSmnrqUtHM5F8=xjLauDBoRbpijWsWxyK+rw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_g892Cr1B8GtN01j1GArU0+Mkoya2UAAb893ZrfKdyeEA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNe4=hVsm3sNerAdELECHz_2m8aWOLK-Kif-JVz_G=HyKw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_jaDNWyZyxsWVQ2YuBG8kuZjo1KovmBVfa2d9vVYb56dg@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNd0AZEDXvTD7uvEgFK-4GRShj9tEcam0C68t4S_ySTNUw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_i84tPbrVZgE-0uLeZs5UB0wY2PLn=R9V74ZUe+0TyfiA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNcWfdgtW+-6tpXgcAPZSNHOdBuoMXLY4nPyf4YoLTeotg@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_gV4YS6FVMiQ0rzDEHCYnOJdeGftY4Z0nm18qfaQBdofA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNfBoh6wcqTUHfHPhbf8zZ4Vj=i2Lg4bEG5wcyuUwz60eQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_j8CX9vddtogsjz80uN=kv6vE7V1dJqEuJdTtGO64PYyw@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbdUSLTN1YJDkigfqvMJw7hUh4Uv+CYSsFETn6N+EQ0NdA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXWZ3pGhOugkTBQG2=0J8PdTkeefqToCsrGGQVV=rv=gQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_iYO-12DaBfAqHJPzBR0hG3Qf7C+vFkRL3m+g7EHKtJfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYh5ghPLBwHpezZ-dq7TjNXM2t+5oFppRaJ7eJ_M_Zd3BA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:02:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdxzgA019iez-HkJyS6cxM9EZ_HdsdmaK4mv6oTDzUSVg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158b44ca54f8804ddccbd68
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.46; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f46.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.688, 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 1UhQ6P-0006Hs-Ic 9f7a513f9a34a3f7b21872926d591fa1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: Separate HEADERS and PRIORITY Frames, Eliminate HEADERS+PRIORITY
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNdxzgA019iez-HkJyS6cxM9EZ_HdsdmaK4mv6oTDzUSVg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18123
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>

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.

-=R


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote;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 28, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 based
>> 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."
>>>
>>
>>
>