- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:20:59 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 26/06/2014 8:25 a.m., Martin Thomson wrote: > On 25 June 2014 13:07, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> The issue I'm having with the extension is very simple : I'm implementing >> an intermediary which will have to adapt to both sides which disagree on >> their extensions. It's the same as adapting the Connection header when one >> side is 1.0 while the other one is 1.1 for example, or ensuring that one >> does not use chunked-encoding when the other side does not support it. > > Where that sucks most is where you have to re-segment. But I have > faith in your ability to do the right thing. > > Keep in mind that as proposed, you are unlikely to convince clients > (browsers in particular) to concede to having large frames thrust at > them. > They already conceded to having infinite-sized HEADERS+CONTINUATION jumbo framesets thrust at them. AIUI the offer is to replace that "infinite" with a fixed and negotiated large size. Possibly (but not necessarily) getting larger DATA from some is a cost of getting rid of the "infinite" headers. Amos
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 08:21:28 UTC