- From: Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:25:53 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm fine with this. -A On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > 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 Sunday, 20 April 2014 16:26:20 UTC