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

Re: Giving the Framing Layer a real name

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:15:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdvK8OiF_S2aGgHipAvUwD9uEq7eB+9h_4A8-WwYMg_YQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Martin Thomson

> On 27 February 2013 10:51, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Then you can't do websockets, etc or whatever other protocol (maybe
> video?,
> > who knows) the web platform decides to do in the future on the same
> > socket/session.
> Not true.  Write another RFC that says how you can share the
> connection with websockets.  That might have to change some of the
> rules, loosen some of the constraints, add some features.

We have enough to do here without worrying about it, but there you go.

> > That would be a poor tradeoff.. and for what gain?
> > What is the additional complexity of having the framing allow for non
> > semantics?
> The cost is in building generality.  Generality in engineering is
> never general enough to solve unforeseen problems, and it never ever
> comes with a zero complexity cost.

When I have a session with a client, I'd like to minimize my resource use,
and provide maximal bandwidth/memory prioritization so that the client's
experience is the best that I can give.
This is neither a theoretical nor insubstantial problem.

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 19:15:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:10 UTC