- From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:15:15 -0500
- To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- Cc: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, IETF HTTP WG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jul 10, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>> http://staff.psc.edu/mathis/MTU/limits.html : >>> >>> IPv6 - The extended length option provides for a 32 bit length field, >>> supporting packets up to 4294967295 bytes. >> >> >> With the operative words there being "extended" and "option". So why can't >> we do this in an extension, again? > > +1 The length settings in the proposal already serves the same purpose that an extension to go larger would, and they also allow you to have small frames. A benefit would be to save a couple bytes in the header when an implementation only plans to allow 16KB frames. However, if that was important you could also create a size encoding rule without an extension. -- Jason T. Greene WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 18:19:30 UTC