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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:19:35 +0000
To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, K.Morgan@iaea.org, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <1865.1403727575@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CABaLYCvFxo0qPG=7o6YcpBDCVETqb6OS3-3_CpQ6KC89u0vniw@mail.gmail.com>
, Mike Belshe writes:

>As it turns out, the number of folks that need super high efficiency bulk
>transport of large data over the internet is very low.

The segment of webmasters who usually introduce themselves as "being
in the multimedia business" would not agree with you about that.

Since their pink bits account for between one and two thirds of all
HTTP traffic, I think it would be a bad idea to marginalize them,
even if they don't participate directly and don't come to the


The length extension proposal is not *just* about solving bulk
transfer, it is *also* about getting rid of the CONTINUATION kludge.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 20:20:02 UTC

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