- From: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 16:26:33 -0500
- To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>, Roberto Peon <fenix@fb.com>, rch=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 10:18:04AM +0900, Kazuho Oku wrote: > Admittedly, the alternatives have less chance in making it to v1. But > the question is, is always using length field so bad that we cannot > wait for a more ideal fix? I don't think it's so bad. The overhead incurred by the DATA frames is small: 0.2% to 0.02% [1]. I think we can live with it for v1. - Dmitri. 1. https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/1885#issuecomment-431348155
Received on Sunday, 9 December 2018 21:27:03 UTC