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 17:28:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnV=sxkT8zYC24eS6hXzWXFo--kdfG_U1e74=2doi9v8Mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24 June 2014 21:10, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> Doing more than 16 bits would take a lot more back-and-forth in the WG, and is likely to encounter a lot of resistance from implementers, from what I've seen.

Protocol failures of the class "bogged down in committee" arise from
these sorts of decisions too.  The overall protocol has co-evolved to
this point.  Changes without really strong justification, particularly
fundamental changes risk invalidating a lot of other decisions.

Sure, we might have arrived at what is only a local minimum, but
without stronger justification I'm really reluctant to act on this.
As far as it goes, Willy's numbers don't actually concern me that
much; parallelism goes a long way to addressing those sorts of
concerns.
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 00:29:14 UTC

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