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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:15:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NFV_guEXeTTWFqBPMkZYBv=E3tvJtDn7aWnq9qsat0_kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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.


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

ie shouldn't we be more concerned about open issues rather than timetables.


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

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