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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:15:15 -0500
Cc: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <085F8CEF-1A93-41F7-8E8A-F99F8D258EF0@redhat.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>

On Jul 10, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>>> 
>>> http://staff.psc.edu/mathis/MTU/limits.html :
>>> 
>>> IPv6 - The extended length option provides for a 32 bit length field,
>>> supporting packets up to 4294967295 bytes.
>> 
>> 
>> With the operative words there being "extended" and "option". So why can't
>> we do this in an extension, again?
> 
> +1

The length settings in the proposal already serves the same purpose that an extension to go larger would, and they also allow you to have small frames. A benefit would be to save a couple bytes in the header when an implementation only plans to allow 16KB frames. However, if that was important you could also create a size encoding rule without an extension. 

--
Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 18:19:30 UTC

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