- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:29:31 +0000
- To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-------- In message <59877D7F-DD52-4158-A44E-EFA5DF0A2F62@greenbytes.de>, Stefan Eissing writes: >Sure. But do you think it should be part of the RFC? No, that's probably overdoing it. But I think it would make sense to loosely coordinate whavever criteria we chose, so that any future extensions don't have to navigate a needless minefield. Right now I'm pondering these two criteria: More than N (25?) frames in row didn't cause our state to change. and More than N (250?) extension points ignored. -- 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 Friday, 17 February 2017 11:30:00 UTC