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

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 14:49:34 -0400
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <AFB5BEBC-341F-45B1-BEDA-D8122CB60FD3@apple.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Martin,

On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 June 2014 11:05, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> wrote:
>>> b) you receive a CONTINUATION frame?
>> 
>> 413
> 
> And the header compression state changes it might contain?  Or are you
> setting the header table to size 0?

Currently that is the case, yes.

If I do decide to support a non-zero header table size, I may have to bite the bullet and support CONTINUATION frames, but for CUPS the size of the headers is dwarfed by the size of the message body so header compression isn't crucial for me.  The only reason I am interested in HTTP/2 is for the multiplexing/framing layer.

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair


Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 18:50:01 UTC

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