Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

I accept that the WG probably has to move on and that we can't iterate on
this argument forever.

But please don't say there has been convergence.   Several implementors
have spoken here saying that they will not support continuations, so the
current draft rather than supporting arbitrary large headers has actually
enforced even worse support for them in deployed implementations.




On 27 June 2014 09:07, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> I think this discussion has converged upon not making any changes to the
> HTTP/2 spec, but allowing experimentation to take place in a "jumbo"
> extension.
>
> As such, I'm going to close the issue. If implementation and deployment
> experience in the next round leads us to think differently, we can revisit
> the question, of course.
>
> Cheers,
>
> P.S. If anyone wants to launch an extension draft, please say so; I'm
> happy to coordinate that through the WG.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.