- From: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 05:47:26 +0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
On 2014–07–21, at 3:00 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > My reading of the WG is that the best we’re going to do for consensus here is option (b) — keeping continuation, and adding an advisory setting for the largest uncompressed header set that a recipient is willing to accept. > > We can split these up into separate decisions if people violently disagree; if not, I think we can stop discussing CONTINUATION. > > Does anyone have further information to addd? If not, will mark as editor-ready. Why were the decisions balloted together in the first place? I never saw how compressed vs. uncompressed implied CONTINUATION vs. jumbo-only. There is little support for a declared, post-compression limit, so the results are skewed.
Received on Sunday, 20 July 2014 21:47:59 UTC