- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 07:18:56 +0000
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CAH_y2NEb8KVTAX5Hx=sYgiPWmQfnVQSvrYhUw5Ki-pgc1MdtVA@mail.gmail.com> , Greg Wilkins writes: >It looks like there are many use-cases and examples that illustrate how >difficult it can be to apply a limit expressed in compressed bytes. So >this just further convinces me that the only workable limit is one >expressed in uncompressed bytes and applied by the sender. This would be bad-ish for speed, it forces all proxies to always decompress (or ignore the limit and hope). >I also conclude that not having a limit is not really an option, because >limits do exist even if they are not declared. Agree. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Sunday, 20 July 2014 07:19:18 UTC