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

Re: Proposal - Reduce HTTP2 frame length from 16 to 12 bits

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 16:11:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUcNqqvNJpBbP8REJRrWYz+45-Side5iBr6nUZHgWMATQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 28 May 2013 15:50, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
> it makes no sense to chisel into stone 12bits in the protocol.

Not to pick on Adrien, but this isn't stone.

Say we do go with 12 bits.  That doesn't prevent a future extension to
the protocol that enabled the negotiation of larger frame sizes.  It
doesn't prevent the use of a new protocol that had 37bits dedicated to
frame sizes.  The only cost is period of suffering where the 12 bit is
the effective limit until various affected parties move to 37.

Fact is, none of resembles stone on anything but the shortest of
timescales.  You might (reasonably) say that the cost of suffering
times the duration of suffering is excessive, but then you have to
make that case.  Impress upon us the magnitude of that pain, and/or
provide reasoning for why that pain would be prolonged.
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 23:11:28 UTC

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