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 13:45:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVc2fq=hLu12gJ4vaYNuUVVDg+kjxQpfwE6gsBvv-9eBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.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>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
On 25 June 2014 13:30, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com> wrote:
> That wasn’t clear to me in the text, thank you for clarifying the intention.

The full range of possibilities are not enumerated, no.  But that is
the intent of p4 in http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#extensibility .
It's brief, partly as an economy thing, but mostly because it's not
clear that all avenues of extension are equally valid.  Before we know
what extension options are actually viable, I'd rather not
accidentally condone a particular non-viable one.
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 20:46:02 UTC

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