W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Proposal: New Frame Size Text (was: Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items)

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:31:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfBuCtLpR7Y2Zz9o4m2BPLeoz9pwGYjmavx=D8uciKVPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: ChanWilliam(ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Hasan Khalil <hkhalil@google.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
PHK,  can you please clarify what you mean when you say "current proposal".
Do you mean the current spec as a whole or my specific change proposal
re:frame size.
On May 13, 2013 1:27 PM, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> In message <CAA4WUYijhOjJ1fo7VhUD6ezsOGO9P5q9M=
> q_p8J3CiDawG3bjg@mail.gmail.com>
> , =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= writes:
>
> >I'd like to see a
> >proxy/server implementer (PHK has already voiced some support) champion
> >this.
>
> Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I'm down to trying to reduce the
> damage where and if I can.
>
> The current proposal is about as far away form how I would like to
> see HTTP/2.0 look as it can be:  Speculative, Complex, far too many
> parameters and not in any way streamlined for high-speed hardware
> based routing and processing.
>
> In other words: The archetypical result of engineering by committee
> to solve yesterdays problems.
>
>
> --
> 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 Monday, 13 May 2013 20:31:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC