Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 07:04:53PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Willy,
> 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 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.

Maybe I missed something, but the underlying issues that led to the proposal
to remove CONTINUATION were complexity, processing cost and sensitivity to
DoS.  So while the HOL blocking and buffering are probably not impacted by
the presence or not of CONTINUATION, these other issues definitely are. Or
am I off-topic ?


Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 09:27:40 UTC