Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

FWIW, my current HTTP/2 implementation does not support continuation headers, for the simple reason that 99.9999% of our users do not need extremely large header support (for ActiveDirectory/RFC 4559 deployments).


On Jun 27, 2014, at 3:17 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

> I accept that the WG probably has to move on and that we can't iterate on this argument forever.   
> 
> But please don't say there has been convergence.   Several implementors have spoken here saying that they will not support continuations, so the current draft rather than supporting arbitrary large headers has actually enforced even worse support for them in deployed implementations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 June 2014 09:07, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> I think this discussion has converged upon not making any changes to the HTTP/2 spec, but allowing experimentation to take place in a "jumbo" extension.
> 
> As such, I'm going to close the issue. If implementation and deployment experience in the next round leads us to think differently, we can revisit the question, of course.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> P.S. If anyone wants to launch an extension draft, please say so; I'm happy to coordinate that through the WG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> 
> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
> http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair