- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 23:46:09 -0700
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: William Chan (ιζΊζ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In this case it's not arbitrary at all, that's what's currently written in the spec. At this point I'm just putting a stake in the ground, there's plenty of time to fine tune it. On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > In message <CABP7Rbe+N+JEesvsV4EeQnc-7YSyiUmp2_46cD7znAA9OcNTZQ@mail.gmail.com> > , James M Snell writes: > >>Proposal: Let's define that 8192+8 is the default MAX_FRAME size. > > 8192 is a pretty arbitrary choice, wouldn't it make sense to do a > bit of math on typical MTU's and TCP/IP header sizes and see if > any numbers work out more optimal ? > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 06:46:55 UTC