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

Re: Call for Consensus: Frame size (to address #553)

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 21:07:22 +0000
To: Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>
cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52256.1405372042@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAEn92To2LmVGwqR1uqW_Z45w6ejjpHG8CfmOf6HPN6qnXv0+OQ@mail.gmail.com>, Johnny Graetting
er writes:

>I'm not that interested in talking about lightbulbs

But the WG certainly is, it's in our charter to support non-browser APIs.

>People mis-configure software all the time. This is a foot-gun. Ex,
>consider an admin for a deployed service who "tunes" their load-balancer
>configuration to require smaller frames because they heard that'd improve
>latency.

How is that different from him "tuning" anything else while being
an idiot ?  Specifically, how is it different from him doing the same
idiotic thing to HTTP/1 today ?

Please come up with a serious and detailed example where this will not
just work out of the box ?

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 21:07:45 UTC

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