On 25 June 2014 12:56, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > Making such a radical change to the protocol at this stage is going to > need broad, strong agreement. Mark, while not disputing the fundamental point you are making, I would like to point out that jumbo frames are really not such a radical change. Continuations are essentially ugly jumbo frames that proxies cannot use efficiently (and that do not apply to data frames). I think the open issue here is do we wish to support large transfers with large data frames? If the WG thinks that issue is adequately handled with 16KB frames, then the switch from continuations to jumbo frames is essentially design aesthetics. If there is some doubt in the WG that this issue is addressed, then I'd be keen to put the effort in to come up with a concrete proposal and a working implementation. ie shouldn't we be more concerned about open issues rather than timetables. 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 11:16:08 UTC