Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Tue, 28 May 2013 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) 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: Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) 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 ) 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 ; 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: References: Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:02:11 -0700 Message-ID: From: Roberto Peon To: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= Cc: Jeff Pinner , Martin Thomson , James M Snell , Patrick McManus , "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: Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/18123 X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: --089e0158b44ca54f8804ddccbd68 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. -=3DR On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, William Chan (=E9=99=88=E6=99=BA=E6=98=8C= ) 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 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 base= d >> 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." >>> >> >> > --089e0158b44ca54f8804ddccbd68 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think that the opcode approach is easier (I have a singl= e branch instead of nested branches), but don't think it is a big deal = either way.

-=3DR


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Willia= m Chan (=E9=99=88=E6=99=BA=E6=98=8C) <willchan@chromium.org> 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 2= 8, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wro= te:
At the time Roberto made th= e 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 Con= trol 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 argume= nt is valid any more.


On Tue, May 2= 8, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
I remember having almost this exact discussi= on in Tokyo. =C2=A0The 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."



--089e0158b44ca54f8804ddccbd68--