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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:32:33 -0500
Cc: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DD612A6F-1A12-4C62-8D9E-45A884EFE6CA@redhat.com>
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>

On Jun 25, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, Gabriel Montenegro wrote:
>> 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.
> As do I.
> This discussion seems to mostly reiterate what we've already discussed numerous times. I think it is more important to get a protocol together that interops than to bikeshed forever on tiny details - and yes I think this is a rather tiny detail all things considered as I believe we all can live with what we have right now - even if it hurts a little bit more for some. And I think muxing and prio are two fundamental parts of the protocol that large frames don't really play nicely with.
> Let me also remind everyone that at least two browsers only will speak HTTP/2 over TLS and lots of the talk in this thread seem (to me) to assume plain-text implementations.

Also worth noting that overly restrictive browsers arenít the sole user of HTTP.

Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 02:33:22 UTC

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