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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:52:55 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNBGP2sd069AsoZoxL9pbm=f_s7q4MqKqGCrmpEcxFhL=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 26 June 2014 16:17, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
I think the current term for those sorts of optional features is
"extensions." If you drafted a good one, I wouldn't oppose its adoption by
the wg.


-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 06:53:27 UTC

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