- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 16:11:01 -0700
- To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 28 May 2013 15:50, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: > it makes no sense to chisel into stone 12bits in the protocol. Not to pick on Adrien, but this isn't stone. Say we do go with 12 bits. That doesn't prevent a future extension to the protocol that enabled the negotiation of larger frame sizes. It doesn't prevent the use of a new protocol that had 37bits dedicated to frame sizes. The only cost is period of suffering where the 12 bit is the effective limit until various affected parties move to 37. Fact is, none of resembles stone on anything but the shortest of timescales. You might (reasonably) say that the cost of suffering times the duration of suffering is excessive, but then you have to make that case. Impress upon us the magnitude of that pain, and/or provide reasoning for why that pain would be prolonged.
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 23:11:28 UTC