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

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

From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:26:17 -0500
Cc: Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DA690556-C4B4-47CC-917B-925B2E578CA4@redhat.com>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>

On Jun 27, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:

> 
> I think pretty much nobody likes continuations, but we accept them as a necessary long tail compatibility mechanism.

Iím glad you said that. This is a good basis to form consensus.

I am hoping that everyone can agree that:

1. Maintaining compatibility is good
2. Large headers should be discouraged
3. HOL blocking is bad in a multiplexed protocol - Although the severity varies according to topology. Topologies involving intermediaries are heavily impacted.
4. Framing limits are unlikely to change in anything other than an extension

It is possible to have a specification that does not concede any of these and still has minimal scope. #541 is one possibility. Matthew had at least one other option.

--
Jason T. Greene
WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 16:33:22 UTC

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