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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:01:44 +0800
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <CE776890-0574-4E12-A5C3-0CD276646308@gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>

On 2014–06–27, at 3:21 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> 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.

Perhaps I missed something, but who is implementing CONTINUATION? I only recall hearing from folks who were not. Are the results from interoperability testing public knowledge? It might be a good idea to give credit to those who’ve demonstrated good support.

To my architecture, multiple frame blocks look a lot like jumbo frames. It could go either way. But implementing both is definitely the worst case, and the more popular alternative is going to happen at least first, if not ever.
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 10:02:42 UTC

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