Thanks for all the feedback regarding this proposal (option #1).
Given the feedback, I think this option is a non-starter. Unless somebody feels strongly otherwise, I am going to close this pull request in favor of the new proposal we just submitted: 'Large Frame Proposal'.
-keith
On Monday,30 June 2014 20:00, MORGAN, Keith Shearl wrote:
On Friday,27 June 2014 09:36, mnot@mnot.net wrote:
> Can someone please provide a proposal?
I've incorporated many of the ideas mentioned on the list and in the NYC minutes to create a proposal that (I believe) accomplishes the goals with a minimum amount of change.
Changes:
+ Only the HEADERS and PUSH_PROMISE frames can alter the compression context.
+ CONTINUATION frames can only use hpack literals (optionally Huffman encoded) that don't alter the table.
- CONTINUATION is flow controlled
- CONTINUATION has an END_STREAM flag
Benefits:
+ Simplifies CONTINUATION implementation
- i.e. fixes the nonsensical END_STREAM that doesn't actually end the stream
+ Flow control of CONTINUATION:
- removes the incentive for implementations to cheat and send large amounts of data in the HEADERS+CONTINUATION jumbo frames
- may help with certain HOL blocking situations (e.g. connection coalescing)
See pull request here: Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 09:01:01 UTC