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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 07:21:23 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3124.1403853683@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <7D8D6BB1-1527-4C79-9E41-BBBF6293B61E@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
tes:

>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.

I would like to propose that CONTINUATION be removed to an extension
as well then.

Several people here have already said that they are not going to
implement CONTINUATION and there is presently no way to negotiate
if CONTINUATION will be available or not end-to-end.

CONTINUATION seriously inflates and complicates the draft-RFC
with its many mysterious and counter-intuitive rules (Such as
"END" flags which suddenly don't mean "END" and so on.)

There is also no published implementation experience with CONTINUATION
that shows it to be a particular good solution to anything in particular
or for that matter at all.

-- 
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 07:21:48 UTC

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