Re: #541: CONTINUATION from Cory Benfield on 2014-07-03 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from July to September 2014)

From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:19:03 +0100
To: "Walter H." <walter.h@mathemainzel.info>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAH_hAJFSA90NJ5fudisRRADRjJrxH7AKFitv-WY0LWOcrTaLMA@mail.gmail.com>

On 3 July 2014 09:00, Walter H. <walter.h@mathemainzel.info> wrote:
> that doesn't prevent you of making a mistake by design;
> because a HTTP/2 frame can be of ANY size and so it makes no sense of
> handling "jumbo http/2 frames";
> its the lower layer that handles jumbo frames and NOT HTTP itself;

You need to go back and reread the spec or any of the many, many
CONTINUATION discussions we've had. The maximum HTTP/2 frame size is
16kB - 1. This is the limitation PHK and others are arguing for
lifting with the jumbo frames proposal.

Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 08:19:30 UTC