- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:36:34 +1000
- To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jeff, We need to show strong consensus on-list to overturn that, despite being a coin toss. If we want to get this into the next implementation draft, it needs to be demonstrated in the next ~2 days. I.e., if there's a number of folks who feel this is a no-brainer, great; otherwise, probably not. Who supports this, and does anyone have a problem with doing it? Cheers, On 17 Apr 2014, at 10:34 am, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote: > I put together a pull request to replace the frame length restriction with an HTTP application layer restriction that I would like the working group to consider. > > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/456 > > Of particular note is that this is in contrast to a previous decision made by the working group (albeit by coin toss in Seattle) which can be found > > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/260 > > With the addition of padding to the framing layer, I believe it is preferable to implement the frame length requirement at the HTTP layer to allow intermediaries to pad frames without running into frame length restrictions. > > Thanks! > - Jeff -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 19 April 2014 06:33:54 UTC