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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:41:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CANV5PPWeX-sDNhOO9n8ZY58f2Mcf58nXUmiLqkmSju=Wt6fE1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Accidentally hit regular reply instead of reply all on this one... (sorry
for the dupe, Jason)

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Extensions are length limited to 16KB, so to allow that you would have to
>> define special framing rules, and if you have done that might as well apply
>> it everywhere.
>>
>
> I don't see any text that says that.
>
>
>>
>> The rough proposals are trivial changes thought. We are talking about a
>> small change to a length value and a new setting to negotiate.
>>
>
> The same was true for both ALTSVC and BLOCKED - trivial, totally ignorable
> frames (they didn't even have a setting associated with them, IIRC)! But we
> removed them from the spec anyway, and agreed to make them extensions, in
> favor of shipping it. There's no reason to block h2 for something else that
> can be done as an extension.
>
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 19:41:30 UTC

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