W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:20:03 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NEj+AtWu2jPY0eq6QSS_RFYoVA6Cp4mwLSGOYWUjxgTqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 8 July 2014 10:58, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> That's at most an editorial issue, and probably an invalid one; no where
> does the spec say you can ignore CONTINUATION, or that it's optional.


That is the issue!

Implementations are required to implement a modal feature that is only used
by 0.001% of traffic, with a switch between modes at an indeterminate size
and many implementations will never ever ever see any traffic that uses
this mode.

This is exactly like header field continuations in http/1 - a required
seldom implemented (correctly) feature used by infinitesimal users.

At the very least we should acknowledge that this is a problem, even if in
the end we accept it so we can handle big headers.

cheers






-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 03:20:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC