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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:58:40 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0E887E68-9116-41D9-945F-BD5DD0C984FF@mnot.net>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>

On 7 Jul 2014, at 9:44 pm, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

> Mark,
> thanks for the serious consideration.
> I agree that the issues need to be carefully identified.   I think 549,550 and 551 are all good issues to create (although this proposal does not directly address 550).   But I think there should also be issues for 
> 	 a fixed frame size does not allow tuning multiplexing performance based on current/future experience.
> 	 the 16KB frame size is not well tuned for frequent payload sizes
> 	 a fixed frame size cannot be adjusted for specific streams in specific situations that may not required multiplexing efficiency.
> Or at least one issue that the fixed max frame size cannot be tuned for any reason

That's a design decision that was made a long time ago. To reconsider it, I need more than vague concerns that amount to "I don't like it"; I need concrete problems that it causes.

> One note of caution with decomposing to individual issues, is that no single issue may be sufficiently important to rock the boat at this late state, but a proposal that resolves many such issues might well be worth the disruption.

... and that's why I've asked for the WG to take this proposal seriously -- as a potential path to resolving a number of related issues. Strictly speaking, though, it does a lot more than is necessary to get there. 

On 8 Jul 2014, at 8:23 am, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

> Mark - can you open an issue for this one-   CONTINUATIONS looks like it is only needed for large headers, but it is actually a non optional part of the specification.

That's at most an editorial issue, and probably an invalid one; no where does the spec say you can ignore CONTINUATION, or that it's optional.


Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 00:59:07 UTC

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