- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:22:25 -0700
- 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