RE: Large Frame Proposal

Hi Yoav-

On Thursday,10 July 2014 12:47, wrote:
> Is that for every frame, or just when a large frame size has been advertised?
> I guess the former, but then we're increasing every frame by 2 bytes for the
> same of those 0.02% No?

Our proposal (Greg et al) already had the extra 2 bytes from the beginning, see the first e-mail (from Greg) in this thread [1].  I simply extended the reserved bits from 1 to 8 to appease concerns by Roberto and others that too many bits is too big of a foot gun, but simultaneously allows future revs of the protocol to *easily* extend the frame length field if necessary.

Our proposal (Greg et al) is *not* just about getting rid of CONTINUATION frames for the 0.02%.  Again, see the first e-mail (from Greg) in this thread [1] for a _detailed_ analysis of the benefits of this proposal.  It's probably better to comment directly on sections of that e-mail if you have concerns.




This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 11:00:37 UTC