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 22:17:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NE+sF_OAF1tpe+UZ4+JzP5NGNt=c0DSreSXqPsn_Wc_Qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 25 June 2014 22:12, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote:

> I'm not saying that nobody needs nor wants super high efficiency bulk
> transfer over HTTP.  Sure, it would be great.  But I wouldn't spend a
> single bit of complexity on it.  Just too low pri.


Mike,

these are good points that do address issue, even if they do so by punting
high efficiency bulk transfers to other protocols and/or extensions.

I just don't understand why the same arguments don't apply for super large
headers?

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 20:18:21 UTC

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