Re: Framing and control-frame continuations

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
--------
In message <CAP+FsNfTZ56An-g3qa5Xo6+ZH_hBUHFM2shHrn-NmM6VWzS_oQ@mail.gmail.com>
, Roberto Peon writes:

>In any case, if/when we implement and there are real performance
>bottlenecks, we can rev the protocol [...]

Yeah, and 640k is enough for everybody, trust us, we've tested this.

Sorry for getting a bit sarcastic here, but I am frankly flabbergast
here that anybody can even propose a <64kByte framesize for a protocol
which will not emerge from standardization for another five years
and which is supposed to last at least 10 years after that.

Just make it 32 bit length, and move on, ok ?

-- 
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 Wednesday, 6 February 2013 14:31:18 UTC