- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:47:28 +0000
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
In message <CAH_y2NEWTUjdsLr-tDbF7fRLkNWsojCR7imKMc-9fBU3cT1g7Q@mail.gmail.com> , Greg Wilkins writes: >Jumbo frames could easily be achieve without and extension bit if we change >the frame header to: I agree that it would be cleaner to totally redesign the frame-header, but we have to pay some respect to the fact that some people think we're ready for Last Call. My proposal was intended to slot as seamlessly in as possible for that reason: * Define one of the reserved bits as adding an 8 byte network byte order length field in front of the payload. (No need to make it terribly complicated, 8 bytes out of 16KB+ is < epsilon.) * Add SETTINGS defaulting to 16KB, and mention that using the extention length is only legal if SETTINGS > 16KB has been received. * Remove every mention of CONTINUATION -- 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, 25 June 2014 17:47:55 UTC