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

Re: Framing and control-frame continuations

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 20:55:05 +0000
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1553.1360184105@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
--------
In message <CAP+FsNdm86+Ti4iJmDy=cKXxc0uvX5KVN0KSUHu=6J0YhL0kzw@mail.gmail.com>
, Roberto Peon writes:

>Why would I like it if the new and supposedly better stuff is worse with
>naive implementations, given that a requirement for a smaller frame size
>would likely do a good job of preventing the sucking in the first place? :)

So you're actively pushing a very complex protocol, and now you're
suddenly worried about "naive implementations" running into trouble ?

Doesn't sound very convincing to me...

Anyway, I've spent enough time you this non-sense.


-- 
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, 6 February 2013 20:55:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 February 2013 20:55:30 GMT