Re: Striving for Compromise (Consensus?)

• From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
• Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:26:22 +0200
• To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
• Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <20140711082622.GC16904@1wt.eu>

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 06:03:48PM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Thanks. Based on the discussion today, I'm open to this.
> 
> From where I sit, the only one that seems controversial is #4 - and we've
> already seen a proposed modification from Greg. 
> 
> Personally, I wonder if we can just ditch #4 and still have reasonable
> properties; an implementation that receives too many CONTINUATIONS can reset
> the stream and continue to process other streams, correct?

But that would rule out one key point of the proposal :

> > For implementors that know that they will never accept more than 64kb
> > of headers, they don't have to implement CONTINUATION frames.

so that's not really an option here.

Willy

Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 08:27:17 UTC