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

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

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:59:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW4cu8o9+RpDghibU3x1egWeoWp8hFhoW1=P5s0FcSXTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 26 June 2014 23:04, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>>Sadly we are not.  We are responsible here for accommodating the uses
>>of HTTP that exist.  We're not dictators, we're curators.
>
> "the uses" or only "some of the uses" ?
>
> Is high performance load-balancing in the set of uses "we are
> responsible for accomodating" ?

Yes, and I'm sensitive to your arguments.

>>As such, we can't unilaterally impose restrictions like this.
>
> My proposal for jumboframes contain no restrictions that differ from
> restrictions in HTTP/1.

And your proposal is a perfectly reasonable one.
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 16:59:55 UTC

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