Re: [hybi] Is it important to know frame length at the start of frame? (was: Re: Discontinuation of mux ...)

[Takeshi Yoshino <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Zhong Yu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> It there any problem if we mandate that 1 http frame corresponds to 1
> ws frame, and 1 ws frame must reside in 1 http frame? What's the point
> of supporting ws frames that need multiple http frames?
>

That's not what I'd like to discuss in this thread. I wanted to get
agreement on that HTTP/2.0 level length + END_SEGMENT is enough regardless
of whether we keep WebSocket frame boundary or not.

So, let's discuss that in another thread.


>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Takeshi Yoshino <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Thanks all for your comments.
> >
> > First, please note that I wanted to discuss the question in the context
> of
> > WS/HTTP/2.0 layering. Not about redesign of RFC 6455 itself.
> >
> > I asked this question since the length header is the biggest field when
> > encoded into HTTP/2.0 HEADERS format. Whether we can eliminate it or not
> in
> > WS/HTTP/2.0 is one of the most important points to evaluate the plans
> > employing HTTP/2.0 HEADERS.
> >
> > Though the ranges the length headers represent differ (HTTP/2.0: 14 bit,
> WS
> > length format: 63 bit), it seems everyone can live without a header of
> > "original WebSocket frame size".
> >
> > Please reply to this post if you have any objection, but please don't
> write
> > objection to use of HTTP/2.0 HEADERS itself in this thread.
> >
> > Thanks
>