Re: Large Frame Proposal

• From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
• Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 20:01:41 -0700
• To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
• Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <CA+pLO_iY1bKz5gvfNsL0in3Y1UHASHe7ewRfwsUosE1-k-ODXQ@mail.gmail.com>

> It adds state to the framing layer, but that’s not a layering violation. Using consecutive binary-format frames to express a single semantic frame, depending on the END_HEADERS flag, is a layering violation.

I agree, which is one reason I don't like the "emit reference set at
header block fragment with END_HEADERS" rule currently in the spec.

> Dynamic changes are unlikely to happen in practice; perhaps that should be disallowed.

I fear the they will happen frequently in practice, requiring dynamic
changes to the frame encoder/decoder. In practice they will likely be
driven by what is seen at the HTTP layer (large uploads/downloads,
file-transfer, etc).

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 03:02:08 UTC