Re: 3.3.1 Frame Header: Purpose of 1-bit reserved field?

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Thu, 18 April 2013 01:19 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 5CDBD21E80ED for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 y-AdP+V9DpQ9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0792121E80D4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1USdUA-0005pO-5g for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:18:02 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:18:02 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1USdUA-0005pO-5g@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1USdU7-0005nn-72 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:17:59 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.219.44]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1USdU6-0003cv-EB for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:17:59 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id h1so2255393oag.17 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5M8teEePsn8iEw3UCTk+ErkdiW48SxE6FixaW9jc1gw=; b=Z3X2pqsBOI0qHxgdRSviyMT3X8+ShzXTSFn5OcGTGg0WECHpI/r6y2CyUzcnj0ImB6 f6nvBf8Ksk6n+iM6EUxPFZuD+yxgVwwLcC37Z6CT7KjDdqmztG8nSPd4GnCZY2utlbyL k76hwBj0xnZ/zXXERDzvUfkLS95MfFeu/Q6nT97zB0iY0+QWdcSTi//AAFO3vlVSUW1Z PsbL6zs0rLLbFmxzlpbh6sc0QUK7OSZddgExlUFtwZ/Z9DuXkBnrLJ06E7AryfQt5TIW pZDY0V86QLUzUgGj3KH7Pp9fdncINto9A7+0+jUBtqNyRyw0REzOzJfbtnt900nzmhAK J+5w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.226.162 with SMTP id rt2mr3995447obc.9.1366247852553; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.141.83 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0165b032e2cc42d0ad8aa48998ad1cbe@BL2PR03MB605.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <em510058b6-8c4a-4e11-9597-f756ef5ed08d@bombed> <9A2814A1-C78E-4C27-ADBF-F97F652B2E60@mnot.net> <CAP+FsNf1jds77oFP=KK+QL5ZU0af9OOJFL=pFsdnmPHaZ2jbnA@mail.gmail.com> <0165b032e2cc42d0ad8aa48998ad1cbe@BL2PR03MB605.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:17:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNctvOQHOBUDYpopuVRLX-vdU53n3ae_LdmgK9-w_WPP5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: "Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH)" <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2e93ced3dd204da985d50
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.44; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f44.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.684, 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: lisa.w3.org 1USdU6-0003cv-EB 2f7ff592ad5e560cae59d60ca47de76d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 3.3.1 Frame Header: Purpose of 1-bit reserved field?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNctvOQHOBUDYpopuVRLX-vdU53n3ae_LdmgK9-w_WPP5A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17321
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>

Yes, autocorrect mangled that, and the correct spelling was "repri", for
reprioritize.

I'm not suggesting that this is spec'd. I was just answering why that bit
is reserved for now.

-=R


On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH) <
Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com> wrote:

> On April 13, 2013 11:13 AM, "Roberto Peon" < grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is for prioritization experimentation in the future. The bit allows
> for priority level vs resource ordering without bloating the payload of a
> reprint frame.
> > It was originally for control vs data.
>
> >> On Apr 12, 2013 11:50 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> >> Looking at the minutes from Tokyo, this was originally for control vs.
> data (as in SPDY).
>
> >>  I think there's been some discussion about discarding the control bit;
> OTOH, if people are going to define extension frames, it'd be nice for
> intermediaries to know whether they count against flow control without
> having to understand their semantics...
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Roberto, are you referring to the stream dependency/reprioritization
> proposal discussed in Tokyo (https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/7)
> ? Also did automatic error correction morph "REPRI" into "reprint"?
>
> My preference would be for a implementation draft to reflect "complete"
> features. As future experiments demonstrate their value and reach
> consensus, then the entire logical set of changes could be adopted
> together. We had a pretty good discussion about informal/minimalist
> principles in Tokyo. It might be worth a few minutes at the next interim
> meeting in June to discuss further and clarify the bar for inclusion.
>  Since we're iterating on a series of experimental implementations, it
> seems easy enough to add changes in the future?
>
> Thanks,
> ...Brian
>
>
>
>
>