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

Re: CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:56:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWpkmT0SxENxEEAhjVRSGQ+G_cBrCBM1GKoSZ6Wo6CFDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 26 June 2014 15:41,  <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:
> Please share your use case for CONTINUATION when the header block is not >16KB.

This would be a great line of argument if we were creating a new protocol.

Sadly we are not.  We are responsible here for accommodating the uses
of HTTP that exist.  We're not dictators, we're curators.

As such, we can't unilaterally impose restrictions like this.
Historically, this working group has been extremely conservative when
it comes to marking HTTP features as deprecated and even more
conservative when actually removing those features, as was done for a
very small handful of features in the latest HTTP/1.1 rewrite.  Each
time, a large body of evidence was required to justify even
deprecation.

The same applies here.  We're chartered to define a protocol that can
carry HTTP.  We already have evidence that >16K of headers is
sometimes used.  And that is enough reason to provide support.
Period.
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 22:57:14 UTC

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