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

RE: #541: CONTINUATION

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 22:18:03 +0000
To: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
CC: <mnot@mnot.net>, <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC20118706860@sem002pd>
On 03 July 2014 23:34, martin.thomson@gmail.com wrote:
>On 3 July 2014 14:24, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Proposal 4 (remove continuation; add setting for total header frame(s)
>> length limit) works for me. I know details are pending, but I'm
>> on-board with the idea.
>
>To be clear, I believe that proposal 4 is two things:
>
>1. A setting that describes the maximum permissible compressed size of
>a header block (default 16K)
>
>2. A mandate to fill all frames carrying header block fragments if
>they are followed by a CONTINUATION
>
>In the normal case, this would mean that an implementation could avoid
>even implementing CONTINUATION.
>
>That is, if we get this right and say that padding can be used to fill
>the frame, otherwise we're back in the poop.

Could somebody please write a proposal for option #4? I can't even follow what the option really is.  For example, Martin is talking about CONTINUATION still, but in the quote from Adrian, the first thing he says is "remove continuation".

This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 22:18:38 UTC

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