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

Re: #541: CONTINUATION

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 15:30:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX2NxLCZSk5KpR95dt-3HTS1xgfZnLwQi1R1fYdPJioVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Cc: Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 3 July 2014 15:18,  <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:
> 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".

Is the above not sufficiently precise for you?  I'm guessing, but I
think that Adrian was just confused about what Jason was proposing.
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 22:30:42 UTC

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