Re: HTTP/2 and Constrained Devices

• From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
• Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2014 22:09:39 +0000
• To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
• CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <D0057CA7.38C30%Robby.Simpson@GE.com>

On 8/4/14, 6:05 PM, "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)"
<robby.simpson@ge.com> wrote:


>On 8/4/14, 5:39 PM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>As for alignment, I realize that we're not perfect, but the only way
>>>>to get alignment is to pad, and no one has been willing to do that.
>>>
>>> My first suggestion is to not make the 'E' bit optional in the HEADERS
>>> Frame Payload.
>>
>>Whether E is present is coupled to whether the priority field is
>>present.  We do have byte alignment, just not word alignment (whatever
>>that happens to be on your platform [1]).
>
>How does one have byte alignment without 'E'?
>
>[Pad Length (8)] + Stream Dependency (31) + [Weight (8)] is my read.

Doh!  Please ignore - I see my mistake now.  My apologies.

Received on Monday, 4 August 2014 22:10:11 UTC