- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:58:40 +1000
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 00:59:07 UTC