x/net/http2: move frame operations to x/net/http2/http2frame

[neild]

This issue is part of a project to move x/net/http2 into std: #67810

The golang.org/x/net/http2 package includes support for reading and writing HTTP/2 frames. The http2.Framer type reads and writes frames, and a number of additional types represent specific frames.

Frame support adds a large amount of API surface that few users need. Users who send and receive HTTP/2 requests operate at a higher level than framing, which is an internal protocol detail.

I propose moving Framer and all of its ancillary types into a new golang.org/x/net/http2/http2frame package and eventually deprecating the versions in http2.

Specifically, the following types will move into the new package:

• ContinuationFrame
• DataFrame
• Frame
• FrameHeader
• FrameType
• FrameWriteRequest
• Framer
• GoAwayFrame
• HeadersFrame
• HeadersFrameParam
• MetaHeadersFrame
• PingFrame
• PriorityFrame
• PriorityParam
• PushPromiseFrame
• PushPromiseParam
• RSTStreamFrame
• SettingsFrame
• UnknownFrame
• WindowUpdateFrame

[rsc]

This proposal has been added to the active column of the proposals project
and will now be reviewed at the weekly proposal review meetings.
— rsc for the proposal review group

[rsc]

How would this enter std? Would it come in as net/http/http2frame?

[neild]

This would not enter std. We'd move Framer out of x/net/http2 so we can (eventually) deprecate that package while leaving Framer un-deprecated, but I don't see a compelling reason to move Framer into std.

[rsc]

So an internal implementation of these types would come in, but there'd be no public API. Sounds good.

[rsc]

Have all remaining concerns about this proposal been addressed?

The proposal is in #67819 (comment).

[rsc]

Based on the discussion above, this proposal seems like a likely accept.
— rsc for the proposal review group

The proposal is in #67819 (comment).

[rsc]

No change in consensus, so accepted. 🎉
This issue now tracks the work of implementing the proposal.
— rsc for the proposal review group

The proposal is in #67819 (comment).