W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: CONTINUATION Frame Size

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:00:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVrUXfjMXh=SP6a_aqyMDswHdvyQGZQiXrYbMqLGZbSDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 13 August 2013 02:21, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been told that [HEADERS interleaving]
> wasn't an option and that continuation frames MUST be contiguous...
> although I personally don't buy it.

As long as HEADERS depend on some sort of state, then it is easier to
require exclusive access to that state (mutex style) rather than deal
with potential concurrency issues.  Until it is proven otherwise, it
might be reasonable to assume that any scheme permitting interleaving
is only going to be more complicated than the current scheme.  I am,
of course, happy to be shown a scheme that enables interleaving
without increasing complexity.
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 17:00:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC