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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:17:32 +0000
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <31703.1403763452@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CACweHNBen54C2GmdbLZscpvezHNomx5gNFigAE8w+U9+veMwfg@mail.gmail.com>
, Matthew Kerwin writes:

>3) Extend frame size for all frame types. I understand where Roberto
>is coming from on this now. It defeats the purpose of the protocol.

In my proposal there would not be any difference for you until you eiter
send a SETTINGS saying you want to accept larger frames, or react to
the peers similar SETTINGS.

In other words:  If you don't like length extensions, nobody can 
force you to use them.

So what exact "purpose of the protocol" would my proposal defeat ?

Is there a secret purpose to specifically hurt websites with
very large objects and high traffic I havn't heard about ?  :-)

-- 
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 06:17:59 UTC

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