W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Interleaving #481 (was Re: Limiting header block size)

From: Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 20:06:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFWmRJ01FFaED5CbQ7P_mSqCRsVEwhR=iMR1-XDZMNwCbBw8tw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 June 2014 01:56, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
>> One solution would be for load balancers to always reject streams with
>> continuation frames.  This would work perfectly well for 99.9% of traffic.
>> So one may ask why are continuation frames in the spec?
>
> This would be a bad idea.  The existence of continuations is largely
> orthogonal to header size.  You might as well reject requests based on
> whether the current date when converted to RGB is a colour you don't
> like.  Such behaviour leads to the sorts of perversions clients are
> forced to do to get HTTP/1.1 requests working today.

Sorry, I don't understand the date/RGB simile.

Can you please expand in a more technical way the arguments of why it
is a bad idea, and how the existence of continuations is orthogonal to
header size ?
Making examples would help.

Thanks !

-- 
Simone Bordet
http://bordet.blogspot.com
---
Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are,
to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability,
the implementation technique must be flawless.   Victoria Livschitz
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 18:07:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC