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

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

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:33:57 +0000
To: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: <grmocg@gmail.com>, <gregw@intalio.com>, <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC201186FABD7@sem002pd>
On 27 June 2014 00:56, martin.thomson@gmail.com wrote:
> We are responsible here for accommodating the uses
> of HTTP that exist.  We're not dictators, we're curators.
> [snip]
> 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.

Nobody is arguing against support.  If jumbo data frames should be an extension, so should jumbo header frames (i.e. CONTINUATION).

Following your line of logic that "we're chartered to define a protocol that can carry HTTP", then you can't unilaterally get rid of *transfer-encoding*, I can provide ample evidence that t-e is, in your words, "sometimes used".

> Period.

That sounds exactly like what a dictator would say.  Or my mom when I was a kid (same thing?).

This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 23:34:31 UTC

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