- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:28:47 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24 June 2014 21:10, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > Doing more than 16 bits would take a lot more back-and-forth in the WG, and is likely to encounter a lot of resistance from implementers, from what I've seen. Protocol failures of the class "bogged down in committee" arise from these sorts of decisions too. The overall protocol has co-evolved to this point. Changes without really strong justification, particularly fundamental changes risk invalidating a lot of other decisions. Sure, we might have arrived at what is only a local minimum, but without stronger justification I'm really reluctant to act on this. As far as it goes, Willy's numbers don't actually concern me that much; parallelism goes a long way to addressing those sorts of concerns.
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 00:29:14 UTC