- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:45:01 +1000
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 17 Jul 2014, at 12:53 am, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > 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). For such an invasive change, I think we need more than a sentence. I also see getting consensus around that being very problematic. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 04:45:25 UTC