Re: #540 jumbo frame, was: Stuck in a train -- reading HTTP/2 draft. from Poul-Henning Kamp on 2014-06-24 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from April to June 2014)

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 20:06:52 +0000
To: K.Morgan@iaea.org
cc: gregw@intalio.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <48132.1403640412@critter.freebsd.dk>

In message <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC201186E0AA0@sem002pd.sg.iaea.org>, K
.Morgan@iaea.org writes:

>I bet jumbo frames are a whole lot less error prone than CONTINUATION frames
>and having END_STREAM on frames that don't actually end the stream.

Not to mention much more efficient because you don't need as many
system calls to send or receive the same amount of data.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 20:07:16 UTC