Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues

My top preference is to close the issue with no action.

My next preference is option [b]. In the best of all worlds it just adds
new information about an existing problem (the existing implementation
header limit) which is helpful.

I very strongly dislike [a] for reasons already stated in this thread:
http/1 tail compat and rewind.


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Mark Nottingham <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/
>
>
>
>
>
>