- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 10:42:41 -0700
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I think that this proposal has some merit. I, like Mark, am concerned that it will get a negative reaction from people who want to ship their existing code and are not sufficiently motivated to change. Assuming now that the general concept is acceptable... My one big reservation is with the addition to WINDOW_UPDATE. I think that it's unnecessary complexity. The other changes you make are well-enough supported, but this seems like feature creep to me. Having to track a limit on each stream is more state and complexity. And making it optional and ignorable means that you've created an optional feature that is optional, which is a poor way to guarantee that implementations will provide and respect it. I think that the setting for maximum frame size needs to be just limited to DATA. I think that the setting for maximum header block size needs to cover PUSH_PROMISE (we already have settings that govern PUSH_PROMISE). Any why 16384 rather than 16383? There are a few editorial problems with the pull request, but nothing major. The edit to the header block section seems to have been rushed; the minimum values on size need to be better called out. On 7 July 2014 00:50, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > squid3@treenet.co.nz > Greg Wilkins gregw@intalio.com > Jason Greene jgreene@redhat.com > Keith Morgan K.Morgan@iaea.org > Poul-Henning Kamp phk@phk.freebsd.dk > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013AprJun/0926.html > [2] http://httparchive.org/interesting.php > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/1664.html > > > > -- > Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> > http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales > http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 17:43:10 UTC