On 19 July 2014 04:24, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > Did I miss anything else pertinent to the discussion? Yes - the option c - namely the "drop continuations and fragment headers proposal" in the wiki. It avoids the role back issues of a). Can work with either a compressed header limit, an uncompressed header limit or no header limit. supports streaming headers & unlimited headers. It can be interleaved if we wish and while that may slightly increase the DoS surface, it is at a big gain in protection from HOL blocking and multiplexing quality of service, plus it does not require interleaving support - just allows it. I really think it was the best proposal that consider all the 'can't live with' points raised on this subject. But it really did not get a fair consideration (not blaming the chair for that - I saw the same lack of enthusiasm as he did in the WG). It is a fine mess that we find ourselves in! 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 Saturday, 19 July 2014 00:31:44 UTC