question on non header block data of chained HEADERS and PP

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Fri, 26 July 2013 18:16 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 CC06711E80F6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 BQscHlMFWphX for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 793D821F99EB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V2mXS-0000I1-H0 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:14:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:14:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V2mXS-0000I1-H0@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <patrick.ducksong@gmail.com>) id 1V2mXF-0000E6-F0 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:14:37 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.219.47]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <patrick.ducksong@gmail.com>) id 1V2mXE-0006JI-O0 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:14:37 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id m6so1317834oag.6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=mLpAXfJGfoV8MFCy36/ZSN25pRJGf3k3fhNH+MBqnMA=; b=hiGVXvKFWxWwJ3a004m9xEgW2sMcJkhGCfoNBXoSLnzNWziDumizOqlO7T0Nf2fd9z tx0HPGjvIFM6ogueXtHCZgX5zK4QnjYIFeWAZZ9VeGuNB9+cgnJMX6ii1FpKBiGfU9/6 dSh8hgaKyctwlEmknALwpB6bScnviU04teJhP0iHGuAFtKE1PWX0A+FPgerPMoM7Klm7 zyPOf/HQv3qLqBBFKBBK5+L1mE7IMMDDLtZXxL6yDOTL4GDB860FWjcsTxJbm26y+AyU xdH2hqQNKnNVmwlR21c07FFrWcwQ9R86ZeZJ951pmt1lblRLl8HG+4PQSwE23GV+Atzb PYWQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.47.137 with SMTP id d9mr3626535obn.26.1374862450727; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: patrick.ducksong@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.152.133 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:14:10 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: w5WYlwFs2Jnin3zqeY-lwEaqFZk
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNocFbwFp35A3Eqf9R5jzm02BEErtz0Z9ZN45M_OT+o7wA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0158a9fefda62704e26e1b73"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.47; envelope-from=patrick.ducksong@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f47.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.658, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V2mXE-0006JI-O0 0e256c0fb5838058ac0eaea0a74b7b53
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: question on non header block data of chained HEADERS and PP
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNocFbwFp35A3Eqf9R5jzm02BEErtz0Z9ZN45M_OT+o7wA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18930
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>

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)...

-Patrick