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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 22:11:26 -0500
Cc: (wrong string) 陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BF48D3C5-3F1E-40A6-BBFB-200618F03CA7@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>

On Jul 8, 2014, at 10:01 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

>> It adds state to the framing layer, but thats not a layering violation. Using consecutive binary-format frames to express a single semantic frame, depending on the END_HEADERS flag, is a layering violation.
> 
> I agree, which is one reason I don't like the "emit reference set at
> header block fragment with END_HEADERS" rule currently in the spec.
> 
>> Dynamic changes are unlikely to happen in practice; perhaps that should be disallowed.
> 
> I fear the they will happen frequently in practice, requiring dynamic
> changes to the frame encoder/decoder. In practice they will likely be
> driven by what is seen at the HTTP layer (large uploads/downloads,
> file-transfer, etc).

Hey Jeff,

How is this different to you from dynamically adjusting the header table size? 

--
Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 03:12:03 UTC

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