- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:47:07 +1000
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 10 Jul 2014, at 10:40 am, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > Lets assume that we're OK with larger frame sizes. > At that point the question becomes: How large should the length field be? > Imho, 64k for a frame is plenty large: 2048 frames/gig seems cheaply doable. > > I've said it elsewhere, in other ways but: > I'm down with a larger max framesize (within limits: I feel that even 2^24 is pushing it). > I'm supportive of a setting for max framesize. There's another aspect here -- if we have larger frames, are people OK with the max frame size becoming the effective ceiling on compressed header block size, because CONTINUATION is ditched in the process? Thanks, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 00:47:43 UTC