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

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

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 06:07:59 +0000
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
cc: K.Morgan@iaea.org, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, martin.thomson@gmail.com
Message-ID: <2646.1403849279@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAP+FsNenv1hFfmWCFL2AAY5iK-2RnQQ7HjX89TP+kz1_G__UiQ@mail.gmail.com>
, Roberto Peon writes:

>Continuations could be used with small header sizes, and should not be
>confused with the size/anti-backwards compatibility arguments

But why would you do that ?

When and where are multiple frames in a design which breaks
any kind of sensible protocol-layering better than a cleanly layered
format where framing has simple and easy to implement rules ?

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 06:08:21 UTC

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