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

RE: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft.

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:55:29 +0000
To: <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
CC: <mnot@mnot.net>, <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC201186DF06F@sem002pd.sg.iaea.org>
On Sunday,22 June 2014 14:36, phk@phk.freebsd.dk wrote:
> And I *far* prefer to have a frame length-extension bit, to having CONTINUATION and all that kludgery.

I think the burden of proof is on the backers of the CONTINUATION "kludgery" to defend how that complexity could possibly be better than a single HEADERS frame with a "jumbo frame" marker - since a single HEADERS frame reduces complexity and the result is the same either way (i.e. in both cases the headers are treated as a single atomic block with the same consequence of potential for HOL blocking).

This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 09:59:38 UTC

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