RE: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues

We prefer outcome B as this will allow us to continue to support existing 1.1 applications with HTTP/2.

While we can live with option a, it will cause us a lot of complexity both in terms of implementation and in terms of interoperability with existing 1.1 applications.  In option a, the receiver controls the maximum frame size not the sender, so we cannot “ask” for an allowance and we have to live with what the receiver offers.  To make this work realistically, the sender will either have to create a new platform limit for existing applications or will have to create potentially complicated compression “unwind” or “preview” functionalities.

Thanks!!

-Rob

From: Greg Wilkins [mailto:gregw@intalio.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 9:43 PM
To: HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues


Prefer a)
Can live with b)

On 18 July 2014 10:44, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net<mailto:mnot@mnot.net>> wrote:
We've had a rollicking discussion about the design tradeoffs in CONTINUATION, especially regarding HOL blocking and DoS considerations.

I see very little new information entering that discussion, and I think everyone has come to understand the tradeoffs. For a refresher, please see the wiki:
  https://www.mnot.net/








--
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com<mailto: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.