On 1 September 2014 08:59, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > On 31 August 2014 03:32, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > >> >> BTW, none of those suggestions change semantics. >> > > Well maybe not strictly a semantic change, but B is certainly a > significant change that can't be made without forcing further significant > change in the protocol (which is not necessarily a bad thing). I think > the protocol has a number of highly co-dependent design decision that while > they are self consistent, also make it very fragile to change. > > (Snipping rest of post) Repeating myself again, but: what do you think of an option C: remove Flags from the general frame header, and add individual Flags fields to whichever frame types require them? * flags aren't universal (see: 0x1) so you can't act on them without having inspected the frame_type field anyway * many frame types don't have any flags at all * by simply removing the field, the generic header goes back to being 64 bits Thus we neither change semantics nor wobble the house of cards; we just move the flags to the place where they make sense. Practically editorial. -- Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2014 23:34:47 UTC