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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:40:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUQ-SEYmW5tN+ZVZJMBm4cUsWsSoZot37ZjkpTfqHMWQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7 July 2014 15:31, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> well we could make it compulsory if that makes the proposal more likely to
> be accepted :) We could mandate that all implementation MUST make random
> fluctuations to the max frame size to hunt down and shame those implementers
> who stupidly think that they need not implement a feature that they do not
> need. [ Note that was sarcasm for those who don't get it ]
> I think the WINDOW_UPDATE is well motivated to support the known use-cases
> where multiplexing is not needed momentarily.     However the proposal
> stands on without it and it could be removed if the WG explicitly
> acknowledges that they will not support the issue that it is trying to
> address (or comes up with an alternative).
> But I'd ask the WG to mull on the proposal in total for at a little bit
> before we abandon parts of it.

I don't think that I was clear enough.  I really don't like that part,
compulsory or not.  I think that it's an unvarnished attempted to cram
per-stream settings into the protocol.  It's unnecessary and very
poorly supported.

A simpler and better approach for those connections that need generous
frame sizes occasionally would be to advertise a large setting.  As
PHK is fond of telling us: you don't have to use all of it.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 22:41:01 UTC

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