- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:26:22 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 06:03:48PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > Thanks. Based on the discussion today, I'm open to this. > > From where I sit, the only one that seems controversial is #4 - and we've > already seen a proposed modification from Greg. > > Personally, I wonder if we can just ditch #4 and still have reasonable > properties; an implementation that receives too many CONTINUATIONS can reset > the stream and continue to process other streams, correct? But that would rule out one key point of the proposal : > > For implementors that know that they will never accept more than 64kb > > of headers, they don't have to implement CONTINUATION frames. so that's not really an option here. Willy
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 08:27:17 UTC