- From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:26:17 -0500
- To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- 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>
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. I’m 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