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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:20:59 +1200
Message-ID: <53ABD7EB.9030702@treenet.co.nz>
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.

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 08:21:28 UTC

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