Re: Proposal: New Frame Size Text (was: Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items) from Martin Thomson on 2013-05-10 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from April to June 2013)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 11:50:46 -0700
To: Hasan Khalil <hkhalil@google.com>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWpKqAzQj1NMAF1rWKuzoErHiPKenJUgBvNzpPCx4xfeA@mail.gmail.com>

On 10 May 2013 10:58, Hasan Khalil <hkhalil@google.com> wrote:
> While I love the idea of limiting frames to 65535B, I hate the idea of a
> continuation bit.

Yeah, but perhaps you can reserve that hatred for the requests (and
responses) that have so many headers that they are larger than 64K.
Compressed.  :)

Most uses of the protocol wont see a continuation bit in use (which
suggests another problem).

Received on Friday, 10 May 2013 18:51:24 UTC