- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 06:24:18 +0000
- To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
- cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- In message <CACweHNCRHHyG9Tr+TBEfC2nKoioA3GVGLYtSU0mCa4ERtMwbOg@mail.gmail.com> , Matthew Kerwin writes: >On 30 August 2014 15:18, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: >> There's a word for protocols which need 256 frame types: "Wrong". > >It only *needs* the ten or so it has. I'll rephrase: I'm much less keen on >reducing the size of frame_type field to 4 bits; I don't believe we need >256 types, but 16 is too restrictive, 100% agree on that. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2014 06:24:46 UTC