Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

Willy,

On 11 Jul 2014, at 6:26 pm, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> 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.

I am not interested in catering to people who just donít want to implement a particular frame type.

As far as I can tell, the underlying issues ó HOL blocking, buffering, etc. ó are the same here whether or not CONTINUATION is used, under this proposal.

If thatís not true, express your objection in those terms.

Thanks,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 09:05:25 UTC