Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)


On 11 Jul 2014, at 6:26 pm, Willy Tarreau <> 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.


Mark Nottingham

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