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 19:22:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVu9AsrtU9HGTFp+kR3HjyEd9V5po5iE2NxRQK8WKZVRA@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 16:33,  <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:
> Nobody is arguing against support.  If jumbo data frames should be an extension, so should jumbo header frames (i.e. CONTINUATION).

There's a fairly straightforward calculus.

Can HTTP do X -> HTTP/2 MUST do X.

So, can HTTP/2 carry arbitrary amounts of data: yes.  The debate there
is about efficiency.  That's very different.

It's different with headers.  If we cap header size, then it becomes
literally impossible to make some requests.

> you can't unilaterally get rid of *transfer-encoding*, I can provide ample evidence that t-e is, in your words, "sometimes used".

I'd rather not re-open that debate, but I think that your concern with
transfer-encoding fixates on the means and not the capability.
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 02:22:56 UTC

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