- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 12:06:05 +1000
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 4 Jul 2014, at 11:52 am, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > I think it is better to try to understand why jumbo frames were rejected last time and try to re-propose them so that they satisfy all the issue and meet all the objects to at least "can live with" level. That’s what I was trying to do, Greg. > That's exactly what a few of us are currently doing.... stand by and please don't reject just because it walks/talks/quacks like jumbo frames. … and I didn’t; I explained why jumbo frames weren’t adopted before, and suggested another path that attempts to work around the problem that you explained. I still haven’t seen any reaction to that proposal; happy for it to be shot down, less happy to continue the meta-discussion. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 4 July 2014 02:06:42 UTC