- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 13:46:46 -0700
- To: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
- Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, John Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 8 July 2014 12:52, <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote: > What does it matter if the uncompressed headers are 32M, or 32G for that matter? As soon as you reach the limit you are willing to commit in resources to the uncompressed headers, you'll stop and respond with 431. Correct. And I'm merely noting that having a setting does nothing to help you avoid having to follow that process. The setting - on its own - is therefore of marginal value. Mark was suggesting that we consider the setting in isolation, which is the point that I was addressing.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 20:47:13 UTC