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

Back to the drawing board? was: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:36:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NGt1O2u07kKp5eSgH6hOy4TiSJEc3tPw3qUjnsqtR2+AA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 25 June 2014 12:20, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:

> I’ve not been following this (my implementation is on hold as it seems
> HTTP/2 is going back to the drawing board) but any “jumbo frames” scheme
> should be amenable to hardware implementation.


David,
I encourage you to progress your HTTP/2 impl, as I certainly found that
doing so has greatly improved my understanding of the draft and the issues
associated with it.

While I think there are outstanding issues, I'm not sure that the continued
discussion of them does mean that we will go back to the drawing board, nor
that the WG thinks those issues are not adequately addressed.  The current
draft is implementable and there does appear to be considerable interest in
going forward with it to see how it goes.

ie, whilst the current draft is not how I would do it if I were god,  I
could live with most of it if it did become an RFC..... and would revel in
the "I told you so" rights I would get when we are all back here in a few
years because it failed to be widely adopted or we have to work out how to
deal with the growing usage of massive headers :)

cheers






-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 10:37:18 UTC

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