- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 19:04:53 +1000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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 don’t want to implement a particular frame type. As far as I can tell, the underlying issues — HOL blocking, buffering, etc. — are the same here whether or not CONTINUATION is used, under this proposal. If that’s 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