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

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

From: Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:36:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFWmRJ1LEvKV9O3KWSx6rXeNts3h4UHEgF9OBL3LrfciZVMgsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> As such, we can't unilaterally impose restrictions like this.
> Historically, this working group has been extremely conservative when
> it comes to marking HTTP features as deprecated and even more
> conservative when actually removing those features, as was done for a
> very small handful of features in the latest HTTP/1.1 rewrite.  Each
> time, a large body of evidence was required to justify even
> deprecation.
>
> The same applies here.  We're chartered to define a protocol that can
> carry HTTP.  We already have evidence that >16K of headers is
> sometimes used.  And that is enough reason to provide support.
> Period.

So there is working code or promised code that will not support
CONTINUATIONS are they are defined now.
FWIW, the Jetty implementation for web browsing is complete, and we
would have already put it out in the wild if browsers did not have
fatal bugs (crashes) that are being addressed as we speak.
It does not support CONTINUATIONS.

There is large majority of the people intervening in this thread that
is against CONTINUATIONS are they are defined now, and I am one of
them.

I read this as rough consensus and working code to *not* support
CONTINUATIONS are they are defined now.

I am wondering what is the exact reason the editors do not want to go
the direction the expert group suggests ?
What it is needed to have this happen ?

-- 
Simone Bordet
http://bordet.blogspot.com
---
Finally, no matter how good the architecture and design are,
to deliver bug-free software with optimal performance and reliability,
the implementation technique must be flawless.   Victoria Livschitz
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 09:37:07 UTC

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