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

RE: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 00:19:22 +0000
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d5baf0349a844a90a7c19e7955ce3e60@BN1PR03MB072.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
NYC interim discussions were very clear about not churning any more before WG LC unless something was completely broken.  We don't think that is the case here, especially as an extension would allow folks to experiment with jumbo frames for data if they so wish.

So I agree with Nicholas, Roberto, Mike on this one. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poul-Henning Kamp [mailto:phk@phk.freebsd.dk]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 15:10
> To: Greg Wilkins
> Cc: HTTP Working Group
> Subject: Re: #540: "jumbo" frames
> In message <CAH_y2NGNCsKkhbmog-
> RXQ5PLefzjMRUkUOyee=fFbBbkxiFfxg@mail.gmail.com>
> , Greg Wilkins writes:
> >Continuations are jumbo frames!  They are just really bad jumbo frames
> >that only apply to headers, can't be efficiently handled and don't have a
> >mechanism for end points to pre declare max acceptable sizes.   General
> >jumbo frames would handle the headers use-case, but also provide a
> >solution for those who need efficient large data.
> My view exactly.
> --
> 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 Thursday, 26 June 2014 00:19:53 UTC

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