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

Re: Options for CONTINUATION-related issues

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 00:53:56 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NHVm_2xkPYYJVQ_j6XnuzQoyivvUDdDnL_tfE=K5udsAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 16 July 2014 17:08, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Are there any other realistic (i.e., capable of achieving consensus, NOT
> just your favourite approach) options that we should be considering?


hmmmm I am probably being unrealistic.... but let's tilt at this windmill

c) Remove CONTINUATION from the specification, allow HEADERS to be
fragmented and add a new setting that advises the maximum header set size
(i.e,. uncompressed) a peer is willing to receive (but might not imply
PROTOCOL_ERROR or STREAM_ERROR on receipt).


cheers


-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 14:54:27 UTC

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