- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:27:40 +0000
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, 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, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
In message <CAP+FsNfKBazaKL4a8PE8mMtCdFhKj1tyXQ-6twAF=rW_X9Ehzg@mail.gmail.com> , Roberto Peon writes: >I don't see how CONTINUATION makes a hardware implementation more >difficult, though? >It doesn't at all change the buffer management. It sure does: The "magic" blocking of CONTINUATION frames into one unit where the END_* bits don't actually mean END_* at all will seriously complicate a hardware transmit-side implementation. -- 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 20:28:02 UTC