Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:00 PM, <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:

> On 25 June 2014 21:48, grmocg@gmail.com wrote:
> > The same is true for any other optional thing under the sun.
> > It doesn't seem to be a motivating argument for including more optional
> features, though.
> > -=R
>
> That's not the point.  Patrick implied that adding the jumbo frame option
> kills the ability to efficiently mux.  That's simply false.
>

A jumbo frame option requires the implementation to be smart to before the
protocol becomes effective/useful for web traffic.


> On Tuesday,22 April 2014 09:00, fielding@gbiv.com said [1]:
> "Likewise, restricting packet sizes to a small length in order to prevent
> fools from HOL blocking
>  their own multiplexed channels makes some sense, for browser developers.
>  However, it actively harms applications of HTTP that are not interested
> in multiplexing
>  because they only want to transmit a single large data stream.
>  ... I don't think it makes sense to limit an application-level protocol
> to the worst case.
>  ....Roy"
>
> So let's be straight.  There are legitimate use cases for jumbo frames.
>  You and Patrick just think the world is full of a bunch of what Roy calls
> "fools" (see above) who will HOL block their own multiplexed channels.  Roy
> (and I) don't disagree.  Roy (and I) don't think it makes sense to limit
> the protocol to protect against an unknown number of fools.
>

Keep in mind that the original SPDY had much, much larger max framesizes,
and I designed it that way in concert with Mike.
Implementation experience, however, provided hard data that this actually
happens, and harms the user.

-=R