Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

On 15 July 2014 02:29, Johnny Graettinger <> wrote:

> This sounds an awful lot like removing continuation & header fragmenting,
> just to re-add it back in later.
> It presents exactly the same debate we're having now: Do we preserve the
> ability to fragment headers? Do we allow the interleaving of those
> fragments?

I would adjust this to "removing continuations done badly to add then
discuss adding them again done properly!"

The "Greg et al" proposal's concern is not against fragmentation - it is
against having 2 fragmentation mechanisms in the one protocol and with one
of them having non-obvious and complex impacts on the state machine.

I think Mark has now decomposed the issues rather well, and we can now
address the issues point by point and debate "should headers be
fragmented/interleaved".   Those are good debates to have and we can only
really have them properly once we have got the current bad fragmentation
mechanism out of the way.


Greg Wilkins <> HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 23:17:54 UTC