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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:22:34 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHzwyDt6Mn_JCZupbu4jEQOoR452OuLu57fsOhzSk0YRx0ZQ=g@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>
Conflating implementation with being in favor of continuations is
probably not accurate. Implementing isn't a vote for the idea, more
just being compliant.

In okhttp we had to implement continuations in order to be spec
compliant.  We deferred writing continuations until we got a bug
report as the user overflowed 16k. Latest codebase is on -13 and
supports continuation. In any codebase, I would love an opportunity to
rip out complicated code for something simpler. I personally would
love to rip out code I wrote in favor of jumbo frames. I loved ripping
out code to support -13.

Love isn't a requirement though, so if folks believe that continuation
is a compromise worth continuing, I'm not going to make my own
protocol :)

-A


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 4:01 AM, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2014–06–27, at 3:21 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>
>> I would like to propose that CONTINUATION be removed to an extension
>> as well then.
>>
>> Several people here have already said that they are not going to
>> implement CONTINUATION and there is presently no way to negotiate
>> if CONTINUATION will be available or not end-to-end.
>
> Perhaps I missed something, but who is implementing CONTINUATION? I only recall hearing from folks who were not. Are the results from interoperability testing public knowledge? It might be a good idea to give credit to those who’ve demonstrated good support.
>
> To my architecture, multiple frame blocks look a lot like jumbo frames. It could go either way. But implementing both is definitely the worst case, and the more popular alternative is going to happen at least first, if not ever.
>
>
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 17:23:01 UTC

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