- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 23:13:23 -0400
- To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 20 Jul 2014, at 5:47 pm, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2014–07–21, at 3:00 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > >> My reading of the WG is that the best we’re going to do for consensus here is option (b) — keeping continuation, and adding an advisory setting for the largest uncompressed header set that a recipient is willing to accept. >> >> We can split these up into separate decisions if people violently disagree; if not, I think we can stop discussing CONTINUATION. >> >> Does anyone have further information to addd? If not, will mark as editor-ready. > > Why were the decisions balloted together in the first place? I never saw how compressed vs. uncompressed implied CONTINUATION vs. jumbo-only. There is little support for a declared, post-compression limit, so the results are skewed. It’s not a matter of one implying the other; these were the two combinations that had the most support. It may be that we could close these issues with no changes at all, but some people’s concerns seemed to be mitigated by it, and there wasn’t significant pushback on it (if not universal enthusiasm). -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 03:13:48 UTC