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