Subject: CONTINUATION frame and continuation flag

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 14:05:05 +0100

Currently in draft -04 we have:

In "HEADERS" frame:

   END_HEADERS (0x4) flag

In "PUSH_PROMISE" frame:

   END_PUSH_PROMISE (0x1) flag

I am updating the document to introduce a new CONTINUATION frame as per 
issue 183. I have a couple of questions:

1) do people want to keep using END_HEADERS/END_PUSH_PROMISE flags or 
should I replace them with "more headers to follow" flag?
(Another option is to remove the flags altogether and just derive this 
information from presence of CONTINUATION frames. Speak up if you prefer 
this option.)

2) If the answer to 1) is "more headers" flag, can I reorder existing 
flags on HEADERS/PUSH_PROMISE so that the new flag
has the same value for both frames (and the new CONTINUATION frame)?

Comments?

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 06:33:48 -0700 (PDT)

Keep the binary value for the flags the same ... either all last/end=1 or
all more/continued=1. I prefer the former value, but not very strongly.

On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> I am updating the document to introduce a new CONTINUATION frame as per issue
> 183. I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1) do people want to keep using END_HEADERS/END_PUSH_PROMISE flags or should I
> replace them with "more headers to follow" flag?
> information from presence of CONTINUATION frames. Speak up if you prefer this
> option.)
> 
> 2) If the answer to 1) is "more headers" flag, can I reorder existing flags on
> HEADERS/PUSH_PROMISE so that the new flag

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 16:31:55 +0200

> all more/continued=1. I prefer the former value, but not very strongly.

Yes, we agreed to this before and I don't think it's worth backsliding
on this one.  END_CONTINUATION >> NOT_DONE_YET.

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 08:52:57 -0700

+1 ...