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

Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 19:54:41 +0000
To: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
cc: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <16478.1404244481@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <5F0DA7C7-79D6-4E8A-A56B-8211B0182C1E@redhat.com>, Jason Greene writes:

>> As I stated earlier, this proposal adds more complexities than it
>> removes and it serves just for treating 0.02%.

Given the amount of complexity huge HTTP headers and the proposed
handing with CONTINUATION frames cause, I think it is time the WG
puts the horse in front of the cart:

Remove CONTINUATION from the draft.

Declare that the compressed headers can be no longer than 16383 bytes
in "vanilla" HTTP/2.

Applications needing longer headers can either remain in HTTP/1
(where it presumably already works for them), they can redesign
their application to use smaller headers or they can push a negotiable
HTTP/2.0 extension for sending bigger requests through the IETF.

Loosing 0.02% of the potential HTTP/2 traffic to that decision
is utterly trivial compared to the amount of traffic lost to
browers which will not support HTTP/1 upgrade.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 19:55:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:08 UTC