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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 20:53:37 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7E6FDAB2-8EA7-4DDA-8F98-0BC219D09B29@mnot.net>
To: Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>

On 27 Jun 2014, at 7:36 pm, Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 ?

Hold on there.

It’s great that Jetty is implementing now — welcome! — but characterising your objections plus that of other folks who haven’t implemented as an expert group vs. the editors’ whims is hugely disrespectful of the nearly 20 other implementations that have spent nearly two years working on this, not to mention the effort of the editors.

At the risk of repeating myself — most of the implementers are currently being quiet, both because they’re busy getting -13 up to scratch, and frankly I suspect that they don’t want to re-hash the discussion yet again, after doing it for two years (and sometimes more). While this is new to you, it’s well-worn territory for most of the WG, and this is not a random decision by the editors. 

As part of the next implementation draft and WGLC, we will assess how well CONTINUATION is implemented, and any problems that it brings. If it's found lacking, we’ll discuss alternatives. At this moment, though, we’re not in a place where we’re going to abandon a feature or re-engineer the protocol without cause; so far CONTINUATION has *not* come up as a problem in the substantial body of running code that we have.

Having said all of that, I’d very much like to hear from other implementers what the current status of their CONTINUATION support is, and what testing plans they have for it.


Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 10:54:07 UTC

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