- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 20:16:48 +0000
- To: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
- cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CANV5PPWfkt8_ZYHPCDFSDJ1qqsdp0Gkwu54JLYDJehmN8cObXg@mail.gmail.com> , Nicholas Hurley writes: >Let's assume some theoretical world where I end up >supporting large frames (VERY theoretical, at this point). If I don't know >that I'm receiving video, I don't want to advertise large frame support, You don't need to advertise large frame support: You can do it per stream with the field in WINDOWS_UPDATE once you discover that this particular stream carries video. >because when used poorly, that will kill multiplexing and priority, "Deliver tools, not policies" IP, TCP, TELNET and FTP could all be used poorly, but IETF members were smart enough not to limit functionality just because some people might not use them optimally. Trying to circumscribe what people can do with your protocol (ie: embedding politics in the protocol) has never been a success for anybody: People will just go and define a new protocol then (Guess why we have started talking about HTTP/3 already?) -- 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 Monday, 7 July 2014 20:36:00 UTC