- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 09:41:40 +1100
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
PHK, Calling the discussion "non-sense" and arguing by repeated assertion isn't going to change people's minds. Illustrating why and how adding an overhead of 8 bytes per 64k of data -- as opposed to 4M -- is too much overhead might. Numbers, please, not handwaving. Thanks, On 07/02/2013, at 7:55 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > -------- > In message <CAP+FsNdm86+Ti4iJmDy=cKXxc0uvX5KVN0KSUHu=6J0YhL0kzw@mail.gmail.com> > , Roberto Peon writes: > >> Why would I like it if the new and supposedly better stuff is worse with >> naive implementations, given that a requirement for a smaller frame size >> would likely do a good job of preventing the sucking in the first place? :) > > So you're actively pushing a very complex protocol, and now you're > suddenly worried about "naive implementations" running into trouble ? > > Doesn't sound very convincing to me... > > Anyway, I've spent enough time you this non-sense. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 22:42:08 UTC