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

Re: Framing and control-frame continuations

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 09:41:40 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <47D86160-DFCA-45A4-AB2F-04BBBF7A4209@mnot.net>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>

Calling the discussion "non-sense" and arguing by repeated assertion isn't going to change people's minds. Illustrating why and how adding an overhead of 8 bytes per 64k of data -- as opposed to 4M -- is too much overhead might. 

Numbers, please, not handwaving.


On 07/02/2013, at 7:55 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> 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.

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 22:42:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 October 2015 05:36:58 UTC