- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 06:04:48 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CABkgnnWpkmT0SxENxEEAhjVRSGQ+G_cBrCBM1GKoSZ6Wo6CFDg@mail.gmail.com> , Martin Thomson writes: >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. "the uses" or only "some of the uses" ? Is high performance load-balancing in the set of uses "we are responsible for accomodating" ? >As such, we can't unilaterally impose restrictions like this. My proposal for jumboframes contain no restrictions that differ from restrictions in HTTP/1. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 06:05:13 UTC