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

RE: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 19:42:57 +0000
To: <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, <jason.greene@redhat.com>
CC: <hurley@todesschaf.org>, <mnot@mnot.net>, <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, <w@1wt.eu>, <gregw@intalio.com>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC201186F56C8@sem002pd>
On 25 June 2014 21:30, pmcmanus@mozilla.com wrote:
>
>> Itís a very common use-case.
>
> unfortunately its one that is in direct competition with the driving reason for h2:
> prioritized mux on one connection. Minimally you should prove out that can
> coexist with jumbo frames because spdy showed us it was a problem. ...

Adding the jumbo frame capability does not force an implementation to send or accept frames longer than 16K-1.

The default is 16K-1 and won't change unless you update the setting.

This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 19:44:07 UTC

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