- 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>
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