- From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:41:43 -0500
- To: K.Morgan@iaea.org
- Cc: mnot@mnot.net, phk@phk.freebsd.dk, squid3@treenet.co.nz, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Jun 26, 2014, at 5:31 PM, K.Morgan@iaea.org wrote: > On 26 June 2014 19:40, jason.greene@redhat.com wrote: >> On Jun 18, 2014, at 11:49 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>> One thing that came up in a side conversation in NYC was the possibility of only HPACKing the HEADERS frame; subsequent CONTINUATION frames would be uncompressed (so they don't affect state, and could be flow controlled). >> >> >> Since it seems likely that the jumbo frames are going to be sidelined to an extension, >> I really think this proposal needs a second look. It has a lot of really nice benefits including: >> >> 1. Discouraging CONTINUATIONS (slightly harder to create and they take more space) > > Why would you still need CONTINUATION frames? Can't you just use regular HEADERS frames without compression? Mainly to allow them to be flow controlled, since thats based on frame type. -- Jason T. Greene WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 02:45:31 UTC