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

RE: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:59:32 +0000
To: <grmocg@gmail.com>, <w@1wt.eu>
CC: <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, <jason.greene@redhat.com>, <hurley@todesschaf.org>, <mnot@mnot.net>, <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, <gregw@intalio.com>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC201186F59E0@sem002pd>
On 25 June 2014 22:12, grmocg@gmail.com wrote:
> Look at this from a hardware engineer's perspective.
> This bit changes how you must structure hardware buffers in order to parse things properly.

This is a good point, and valuable feedback for designing jumbo frames, but easily solvable with Willy's proposal or any other variation with a fixed length field for the payload length.

> This requires far more complexity for a hardware implementation,
> and would reduce the chance that we get acceleration in HW for HTTP2.

Exactly what is the http2 hardware acceleration doing? Reassembling frames?
This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 21:00:42 UTC

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