W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 19:04:53 +1000
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C5412E2D-7CFF-4F55-99CD-96C57EA6EADF@mnot.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>

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.


Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 09:05:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC