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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:43:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVXvWRvrR3O5t0Hh9+mc_Gn_7bNJMyK9s0Q+EHamQjSuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
On 27 June 2014 03:01, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps I missed something, but who is implementing CONTINUATION? I only recall hearing from folks who were not.

I don't know how many of these [1] implement CONTINUATION, but I'd
imagine that it's close to 100%.

I know that it makes some people sad, where perhaps a larger frame
size would not.  But of those that have HTTP/2 implementations, the
number of complaints we've received is fairly low, if vocal.

The more general issue of frame size and forwarding performance is
probably less well-tested, probably because the focus thus far has
been on functional interoperability.  Performance on the scale that
Willy and PHK concern themselves with takes a little more time and
effort to reach.  On the other hand, I hear that Google do test - and
have tested - at scale and aren't concerned about performance, but
it's not perfectly clear cut.
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 16:44:00 UTC

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