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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:25:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVzb2=KJZO3oH5_ZvXB1mPVUNF-Wqk0HcS6ytTqXdHiSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
On 25 June 2014 13:07, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> The issue I'm having with the extension is very simple : I'm implementing
> an intermediary which will have to adapt to both sides which disagree on
> their extensions. It's the same as adapting the Connection header when one
> side is 1.0 while the other one is 1.1 for example, or ensuring that one
> does not use chunked-encoding when the other side does not support it.

Where that sucks most is where you have to re-segment.  But I have
faith in your ability to do the right thing.

Keep in mind that as proposed, you are unlikely to convince clients
(browsers in particular) to concede to having large frames thrust at
them.
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 20:25:49 UTC

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